# Game Mechanics And Player Agency



## Sunseeker (Mar 17, 2018)

My "Red-Line" is when a mechanic forces a player to sit out of the game, the longer it is, the further it crosses the line.  I don't mind games that say "You've been possessed and the spirit controlling your body wishes to attack your allies." So long as that control is given to the player, "Hey player, you're still rolling the dice here, but you're gonna do something different." is perfectly acceptable.  When the game _takes away_ the character, puts it under direct GM control (where the GM is making the decisions and rolling the dice) as opposed to indirect GM control (where the GM gives you instructions on how to act, but lets the player rolls the dice and fill in the specifics) is IMO, too far.  You don't want to remove the player from the game, the player should always be kept in the game, even if its to do things they don't want to do.  Indeed fighting against the mind control can make for interesting choices, ex:

If the Evil Wizard commands you to attack your friends, the choice on which friend you attack first is left up to the player.  Perhaps the dominated-but-still-aware PC mind takes this as an excuse to attack That Guy who has always been a pain or to finally rid the party of the Bumbling Idiot.  Perhaps the dominated-but-still-aware PC mind ops to attack the tough, heavily-armored fighter knowing that they are least likely to kill that person.  It is interesting from a DM perspective to allow players that level of control, and I think fitting to the genre that the bad guy may not issue the most tactical orders, ie: the bad guy is more likely to say "Kill your friends!" than he is to say "Kill the healer, then the mage, then the rogue, then fighter and make sure they're actually dead by cutting off their heads!"  Maybe there's even some interesting dialogue as all the bad things the dominated-but-still-aware PC feels (even if minor) spill out during combat.  

But you lose that when you take away the PC and make them a silent drone of the GM, or allow the GM to write that sort of interaction for them.  Plus the GM has so much to do already...do they really want to run the PCs as well?


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 17, 2018)

shidaku said:


> My "Red-Line" is when a mechanic forces a player to sit out of the game, the longer it is, the further it crosses the line.




Yeah I totally agree. The way I think of it is that the players have taken the time to go to the game, so having long periods of time where they're excluded is not desirable. IMO this principle can extend to areas such as other players taking excessively long turns, but it's definitely the case for "stun lock" attacks, too much charm and fear, or imprisonment. A little goes a long way. 

That said, there are players who can get really whiny about this, but if the GM keeps the game running smoothly at least they won't have a strong leg to stand on.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 17, 2018)

The obvious line is magic. There's a difference between 'this wizard casts a spell on you, so now you're doing what he tells you,' and 'this guy made a very convincing argument, so now you want to help him'; the first prevents the player from expressing their free will in what they want to do, but the second one actually changes what their free will is supposed to be in the first place.

Whenever a PC does something that they wouldn't normally do, everyone at the table - including the GM, and especially the player - should recognize that it's something they wouldn't normally do, so they know for a fact that something shady is going on. You should never have a case where the GM effectively says, 'actually you _would_ normally do that in this situation, because I know your character better than you do'.


----------



## pming (Mar 17, 2018)

Hiya!

My "red line" is only when/for a mechanic that gives another Player control of a fellow Player's character. All Players at the table understand that each other is there to play their character. All Players also understand that the GM is *not* "another Player"...and that the GM is given extremely powerful leeway on how his/her game is run.

So, when an NPC wizard uses a spell that, in the OP's parlance, "removes that players agency"...that should be perfectly fine because every single player at the table knows that this can happen. They know that if something "in the game world" does something to control their PC, that the GM is there to take over and decide what happens. The players SHOULD trust their GM to run the character "fairly" (as dictated by his/her GM knowledge of what is _actually _going on).

The only time I've had upset players is when one of two things happens: 

One, it's one Players PC "taking control" of another Players PC via magic/ability/whatever. This never ends well. Ever. It's basically "bullying other players at the table" so to speak. (NOTE: Long term friends or players in a group can usually overcome this because, well, they're all friends; anybody who specifically tries and piss of their friends quickly finds that they will have none...)

Two, the Player is a self-entitled little whiny brat who doesn't think the rules of the spell/ability/whatever apply to _their_ PC because _their_ PC is super-extra-doubly-special. This player is under the false impression that they get to decide how a GM runs the game if they don't like it.

IMNSHO, the players at the table should know the difference between the GM's role in the game and the Players role in the game. The GM can do, technically, anything they want. The players can not. This difference, however, is moot most of the time because most roleplayers are there to have fun and not piss off their friends (or even total strangers). Everyone at the table (GM and Players) should be there for the purpose of having a good time and collectively playing make believe. But...there are always those players who fall into my #2 reason above. Still, as I said, Players should fully understand and accept that some things in the game that happen to their PC will be out of their hands. The Players have to trust the the GM will "play fair"...and yes, even if this means that their PC poisons everyone that night including themselves, causing a TPK.

I have a feeling I'm going to be an "outlier"...again...of what the majority of Players and GM's think about this whole thing.  *shrug* It's ok. I'm use to it. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Shiroiken (Mar 17, 2018)

IME, the term Player Agency is often thrown out as an argument against an action taken by the GM that upsets certain types of players. In an RPG, players control their characters actions, but only within the rules of the game. Effects that limit options or remove them altogether are generally disliked, but so long as this possibility is known (usually in the form of the game rules), the player has little ground for complaint (other than to play a different game). It doesn't even have to be magic compulsion, because I've found some games work well with actual social mechanics.

I'm not a fan of effects that prevent a player from doing anything for a long period of time, and try to mitigate them. For example, a charmed/dominated character can still be controlled by the player, so long as the player acts appropriately. If the player starts to half-ass their abilities to save the rest of the party, they lose that option and then get to sit out the rest of the fight (or until no longer charmed/dominated). Most players seem okay with this (and a few jerks delight in the rare PvP), so I've seldom had to sit a player. Insanity is another good example, as is replacement by doppelganger. Good players don't have to sit out, even though it may be recommended in the game rules, so long as everyone plays their character correctly (including personality altering effects).


----------



## Campbell (Mar 17, 2018)

I'm not a fan of mechanics that take away control, but I am a fan of mechanics that influence and limit player behavior in ways that reflect the social and emotional pressure their characters are under. Good examples include the Beaten Down and Surrender Mechanics from New World of Darkness 2e, Apocalypse Worlds' xp for going along with social influence, Masks' Label Shifting and Conditions, and Exalted 3e's Intimacy Mechanics. I think we often end up making decisions for our characters with too much emotional distance and those mechanics can help bring us closer to what they are experiencing in the moment.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 18, 2018)

pming said:


> My "red line" is only when/for a mechanic that gives another Player control of a fellow Player's character.
> 
> ...
> 
> I have a feeling I'm going to be an "outlier"...again...of what the majority of Players and GM's think about this whole thing.  *shrug* It's ok. I'm use to it.



Not so much an outlier as you think.  In my games pretty much anything goes.  Charm someone else's PC?  Fill yer boots - but know well that the same might happen to you in turn sometime down the line...  Same goes for killin' or stealin' or whatever else.

Crazy example of this from very early in my current campaign.  An all-hands in-party brawl had broken out, and as fate would have it something like 4 or 5 party members had access to charm either by spell or  bardic song or innate ability...and they did; in a looping chain where character A charmed B, B charmed C, C charmed D, and D charmed A all within the same round, with all saves failed!  Character E, who could also charm, picked on some other random bozo.  What a mess...and all done through gales of laughter! 

As for someone sitting out - it happens.  Fact of life.  There'll be times when your PC is held, or paralyzed, or stone, or captured, or unconscious, or dead, or otherwise out of action for a greater or lesser amount of time.  To mitigate this I always encourage people to have two characters on the go, so if one gets hosed they've still got the other.  There's also usually at least one party NPC that a player can take over for a while if necessary.  And as most other things wear off but death kinda doesn't, we usually try to get dead (or stone, or long-term-captured) PCs either revived, recovered, or replaced with a new PC at the first realistic opportunity.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Not so much an outlier as you think.  In my games pretty much anything goes.  Charm someone else's PC?  Fill yer boots - but know well that the same might happen to you in turn sometime down the line...  Same goes for killin' or stealin' or whatever else.



Yeah, this reflects table dynamics. Most people get really cranky with a lot of PvP behavior. 




> As for someone sitting out - it happens.  Fact of life.  There'll be times when your PC is held, or paralyzed, or stone, or captured, or unconscious, or dead, or otherwise out of action for a greater or lesser amount of time.  To mitigate this I always encourage people to have two characters on the go, so if one gets hosed they've still got the other.  There's also usually at least one party NPC that a player can take over for a while if necessary.  And as most other things wear off but death kinda doesn't, we usually try to get dead (or stone, or long-term-captured) PCs either revived, recovered, or replaced with a new PC at the first realistic opportunity.




Indeed it does. I think character death is something that bothers people a bit less than some of the others, particularly long and frustrating stun locks or super long turns on the part of other players. People set aside their time to come to the game; getting excluded for long periods of time is really no fun. A party NPC is a good option, or henchmen of some sort, especially in a smaller group, so that can definitely help.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 18, 2018)

Campbell said:


> I'm not a fan of mechanics that take away control, but I am a fan of mechanics that influence and limit player behavior in ways that reflect the social and emotional pressure their characters are under. <...> I think we often end up making decisions for our characters with too much emotional distance and those mechanics can help bring us closer to what they are experiencing in the moment.




Yes, I definitely agree about the emotional distance issue. I've used some basic personality mechanics, including checks I'll make myself, to help me decide on what my PC (or NPCs when I'm GMing) will do. I usually write down a few descriptive adjectives such as Integrity, Mercy, Courage, and assign them numbers. If I'm really on the fence about something I'll check against them (roll a D20 vs. the number). Of course this is non-binding, but it helps push in directions I wouldn't otherwise necessarily choose just on my own.


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 18, 2018)

sirlarkins said:


> *King Arthur Pendragon* debuted in 1985 featuring even more radical behavioral mechanics. The game's system of Traits and Passions perfectly mirrors the Arthurian tales, in which normally sensible and virtuous knights and ladies with everything to lose risk it all in the name of love, hatred, vengeance, or petty jealousy. So too are the player-knights of the game driven to foolhardy heroism or destructive madness, quite often against the players' wishes. Indeed, suffering a bout of madness in *Pendragon* is enough to put a player-knight out of the game sometimes for (quite literally) many game-years on end…and if the player-knight does return, they are apt to have undergone significant trauma reflected in altered statistics. of all types.
> 
> Infringing on player agency calls for great care in any circumstance. As alluded to at the top of this article, GMs already have so much power in the game, that to appear to take any away from the players is bound to rankle. This is likely why games developed mechanical means to allow GMs to do so in order to make for a more interesting story without appearing biased or arbitrary. Most players, after all, would refuse to voluntarily submit to the will of an evil wizard, to faint or flee screaming in the presence of cosmic horror, or to attack an ally or lover in a blind rage. Yet these moments are often the most memorable of a campaign, and they are facilitated by behavioral mechanics.
> 
> What do you think? What's your personal "red line" for behavioral mechanics? Do behavioral mechanics have any place in RPGs, and if so, to what extent? Most crucially: do they enhance narrative or detract from it?




I got to thinking along these lines when I saw the Pathfinder 2 update regarding what PCs can and can't do in terms of skills.  But my thoughts went more toward GM agency...

Behavioral mechanics belong in RPGs just as much as somatic mechanics do.  There's no practical difference between "your character can't pick up the boulder because it's too heavy," and "your character can't pick up the boulder because his mind won't let him."  Where you need to be careful is with *player expectations*.  If a player starts the campaign thinking "I can do whatever my character is physically capable of," then the mental example will result in some butt hurt.  If a player starts the campaign thinking "my character can be limited in different ways in order to increase the challenge of the game," then neither limit looks worse than the other.

My take on Traits and Passions is Goals and Flaws.  Like Fate's aspects, they're player-defined, so the player takes some responsibility when the goals or flaws work for or against him.  Here's the "charm" spell that results:

Telepathy 2
Range: close
Target: single 
D/M: +2/yes
Effect: the target gains a goal or flaw of your choice.  This goal or flaw exists only in the target's mind.
Half: (M) target gains +4 on the remaining defense actions.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> The obvious line is magic. There's a difference between 'this wizard casts a spell on you, so now you're doing what he tells you,' and 'this guy made a very convincing argument, so now you want to help him'; the first prevents the player from expressing their free will in what they want to do, but the second one actually changes what their free will is supposed to be in the first place.
> 
> Whenever a PC does something that they wouldn't normally do, everyone at the table - including the GM, and especially the player - should recognize that it's something they wouldn't normally do, so they know for a fact that something shady is going on. You should never have a case where the GM effectively says, 'actually you _would_ normally do that in this situation, because I know your character better than you do'.




Exactly this.

I don't mind if my TOR character has a Bout of Madness, or my D&D character gets Charmed, or my CoC character goes insane.  I don't think of that as "loss of player agency" any more than being unconscious or dead is.

What I _do_ mind...very much...is, in the absence of those sorts of conditions, the DM (or even another player) telling me what my character thinks or feels.   "A wood elf wouldn't do that" or "You would definitely not think of using fire on these creatures that keep healing" or "I'll use Persuade to convince your character that mine is right" or "You find Jeff's character so inspiring that you get your HP back."

(Ha!  I managed to turn this thread into another one about both Metagaming _and_ Warlords in a single sentence!)


----------



## Barantor (Mar 18, 2018)

I have no red line when it comes to this since it is set with each individual game. Some players don't mind it when the game throws things at them and they have to pick up after the outcomes, others want complete control of all things that can even remotely affect their control of their character. 

There are games that do both in the extreme, and there are tons of games that come somewhere in between. So long as the 'line' is set before the game begins then that's where it is, to me as a GM I'll do whatever the players want as it's fun to mess around with things. 

There have been times when players have lost control, dealt with the fallout of it and then enjoyed the heck out if it (statements like: "Wow, I'd never have done that or expected that!"), just depends on the group.


----------



## Koloth (Mar 18, 2018)

Don't remember ever hearing the term 'Player Agency' before.  Things you learn after 40+ years of RPG playing.  

I have found that playing a character that is under some other entity's control can be an interesting role play opportunity.  Especially if the other players don't know that my character is not his/her normal self.  Can be a interesting game seeing how long the character can carry out the controlling instructions before being found out.  Or depending on level of control, finding a way to let the other party members know something isn't right while still complying with the instructions.

GMs that try to assume control or limit player/character actions too often should remember that while the game may be under GM control, the players have the final say on whether or not their butts stay seated at that table.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 18, 2018)

Koloth said:


> Don't remember ever hearing the term 'Player Agency' before.  Things you learn after 40+ years of RPG playing.



You obviously haven't been reading the now-huge "what is worldbuilding for" thread, then, as player agency (in one definition or another) has been at the core of that discussion right from the start.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 18, 2018)

pming said:


> /snip
> 
> I have a feeling I'm going to be an "outlier"...again...of what the majority of Players and GM's think about this whole thing.  *shrug* It's ok. I'm use to it.
> 
> ...




Thankfully so, IMNSHO.  I'm very much against the whole "I'm the DM, therefore what I say goes" approach to RPG's.  Both as a DM and as a player.  But, mostly I dislike this sort of thing because all it does is piss people off.  It's no fun.

It's kind of like labyrinths in RPG's.  Fantastic idea that never works.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 18, 2018)

Thread randomly reminds me of a book in which the characters are players in a prototype download-your-brain-style-VR-RPG.  During the introduction someone asks if the computer couldn't just take away their free will and make them do something.  The programmer replies, well, it could in theory, but it wouldn't, because that wouldn't be appropriate for the game setting.  Which immediately made me wonder if the guy had never heard of _charm_ effects.  Foreshadowing, of course.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 19, 2018)

I still don't like the use of the term "agency" for RPGs. It's not a term you can tell to a stranger and expect them to know what you mean. It's unnecessary jargon.


----------



## mcosgrave (Mar 19, 2018)

Koloth said:


> Don't remember ever hearing the term 'Player Agency' before.  Things you learn after 40+ years of RPG playing.
> 
> I have found that playing a character that is under some other entity's control can be an interesting role play opportunity.  Especially if the other players don't know that my character is not his/her normal self.  Can be a interesting game seeing how long the character can carry out the controlling instructions before being found out.  Or depending on level of control, finding a way to let the other party members know something isn't right while still complying with the instructions.
> 
> GMs that try to assume control or limit player/character actions too often should remember that while the game may be under GM control, the players have the final say on whether or not their butts stay seated at that table.




There is an interesting version of this in ‘Eye Spy’ in series 1 of Agents of Shield’ involving control through a cybernetic eye with a kill switch for disobedience- see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._(season_1)#ep4

I imagine it could be adapted for a high magic setting


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 19, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I still don't like the use of the term "agency" for RPGs. It's not a term you can tell to a stranger and expect them to know what you mean. It's unnecessary jargon.



Even if you know about it, you might not understand what someone means by it.

Coming into this thread, I was caught off-guard by the limited scope of the discussion. There's nothing in here about extra-character player agency, or if/when a PC dies.

That being said, while I agree that it is jargon, I'm not sure what other words you would use to address the topic.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 19, 2018)

I was a bit surprised to open a thread on game mechanics and player agency, and find that it's about behavioural mechanics. I don't think that's where the real action is for player agency and RPG mechanics.

It's also important to differentiate control over the PC _in the fiction_, and the scope of player action declarations at the table. To give a concrete illustration. In one of the campaigns that I GM, a PC is under the control of a dark naga. But this doesn't effect the player's agency at all: in this system PCs have Beliefs, and the player has written a Belief about his service to his master. And then he just plays the game just the same as any other player would.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 19, 2018)

One of the most important things that I do when I run a campaign, is confirm a players' action. Often there will be a situation where the player is about to take an action that could be considered dangerous to their character. And right at that moment, other players at the table point out the danger of the action. And I actually welcome this sort of player investment in another player's actions. At my table, players are allowed to debate what they want to do for as long as they like, and they are allowed to reconsider their actions, as long as the outcome of that action has not been revealed yet by me.

So in such cases where the action might be dangerous, I always ask: "Are you sure you want to go through with this action?". And don't get me wrong, I'm not giving away warnings here, or spoiling traps. I'm merely confirming that I understand the actions of their character correctly, and that they as players fully understand the situation as I've described it.

For example, my players recently encountered a tripwire behind a door. The Rogue wanted to cut the wire. So I asked _"Do you cut the wire?"_. He pondered for a second, discussed with his fellow players, and then asked: _"Can I see what the tripwire is connected to? Can I see if cutting it will set off the trap?"_. To which I replied: _"No you can't, and opening the door any further would cause it to push against the tripwire and set it off." "What if I use a mirror to look around the corner?"_ He asked, and this is how he discovered that the tripwire was connected to a flintlock mechanism, and that he could safely cut the wire. _"I cut the wire"_, he said. And cut it he did.

Not only does this method ensure that the players retain agency, but it actually adds a bit of extra suspense. They understand that disarming a simple trap is not merely a case of a successful die roll, but that their choices really do matter.


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2018)

I don't have a "red line" as such, but rather increasing circles of wariness when it comes to interfering with PC action.

In general, my view is that the DM gets to control _everything else_ in the campaign world, but the one thing he _doesn't_ get to control is a PC. Therefore - hands off!

When it comes to mundane interactions (persuasion and the like), I'll handle this through role-play - if I rolled well on the Persuasion check, I'll have the NPC talk in a persuasive manner. If not, I'll have him act like a jerk. (In rare occasions, where my acting fails me, I might straight-up tell the player "this guy is very persuasive", but the key word there is _rare_ - generally, if I get to this point, I've messed up.) In any event, in all such cases it is for the player to decide how to react to the situation.

Magical compulsion is a slightly different matter, but even here I'll try really hard to avoid taking over the PC. Most often I'll hand the player a note informing them of the situation, and ask them to play accordingly. It remains their decision how to portray their character, relevant to the situation. Obviously, the more powerful the compulsion, the more strictly I'd expect them to stick to the parameters - a low-level spell will give great leeway and wiggle room, while a high-level spell would be much more onerous.

The only real case where I'd take control of the character is if I can't trust the player to act accordingly. But then, I strongly prefer not to DM if I can't trust my players.

When it comes to PvP, the same more or less applies. But I've been lucky enough that I haven't seen any uses of compulsion magic on another PC in decades.

One table convention we are in the process of adopting, however, is to ban a PC taking action to negate another PC's action. That is, quite often a player will declare some action (which may or may not be a good idea), only for a second player to immediately say "before he does that, I'll {take some action to prevent him from acting}". Which isn't the same thing, but has been causing some problems. So the convention will be that you can build on another player's action, you shouldn't act to tear it down again.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 19, 2018)

delericho said:


> One table convention we are in the process of adopting, however, is to ban a PC taking action to negate another PC's action. That is, quite often a player will declare some action (which may or may not be a good idea), only for a second player to immediately say "before he does that, I'll {take some action to prevent him from acting}". Which isn't the same thing, but has been causing some problems. So the convention will be that you can build on another player's action, you shouldn't act to tear it down again.




This is one of my biggest annoyances as a DM, but I don't quite know how to put a stop to it.


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> This is one of my biggest annoyances as a DM, but I don't quite know how to put a stop to it.




Yep. I think this is one of those cases where your best bet is to speak to the players directly about it, and get them to buy-in. Trying to impose it as a rule is unlikely to work.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 19, 2018)

I'm definitely in favor of having 'behavioral mechanics' in a game. If players are creating characters, they should think carefully about what motivates and drives them. This is a crucial information for the GM when trying to present them with adventure hooks they're actually interested in.

Being able to use personality traits in more ways than just fleshing out a character is where things get really interesting, though:
In Ars Magica, numerical values are assigned to them, so they can be used in checks. Players are encouraged to pick Virtues and Flaws to gain additional advantages (or disadvantages!) in situations where their traits are relevant.

Behaving out of character may call for a personality trait check and result in a penalty for the encounter if the player insists on ignoring it.

As the article points out, similar mechanics exist in other RPGs, such as Pendragon, The One Ring, The Dark Eye, Earthdawn, etc.


----------



## Over the Hill Gamer (Mar 19, 2018)

I think the greater threat to player agency is not GM overreach but system mechanics that steer players to a handful of defined options, moves, or actions. These systems remove the greater scope of possibility.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 19, 2018)

Over the Hill Gamer said:


> I think the greater threat to player agency is not GM overreach but system mechanics that steer players to a handful of defined options, moves, or actions. These systems remove the greater scope of possibility.




-Or player interpretation of those mechanics. I've encountered plenty of players in my life who thought that character actions in D&D were limited to whatever you have skills or abilities for. Especially so with third edition, with that big list of skills. I've gradually taught my players that they can try to do any action they like, and statistics are only relevant when I say so.


----------



## Koloth (Mar 19, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> This is one of my biggest annoyances as a DM, but I don't quite know how to put a stop to it.




1st char - one doing the action.  2nd char - one attempting to halt said action.
Did the 2nd character trying to stop the action specifically prepare a "Ready Action" or equiv for game system being used?  Implies character(not player) had some foresight that 1st character might pursue the unwanted action. Yes - 2nd char can attempt to halt 1st char action.  No? Have the 2nd character make a perception roll to notice the 1st character starting the action.  If successful,  does the 2nd character have a way to act out of turn?  Yes - make the attempt. Might be possible for 1st character to contest the attempt to halt action.  No - Too bad, 1st character continues doing action.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 19, 2018)

delericho said:


> One table convention we are in the process of adopting, however, is to ban a PC taking action to negate another PC's action. That is, quite often a player will declare some action (which may or may not be a good idea), only for a second player to immediately say "before he does that, I'll {take some action to prevent him from acting}". Which isn't the same thing, but has been causing some problems. So the convention will be that you can build on another player's action, you shouldn't act to tear it down again.



This happens in my game all the time, almost always in the following sequence:

Player 1: "[my PC] does [something incredibly dumb or dangerous]"
Player 2: "[my PC] tries to [grab/restrain/stop] him!"
DM: "[PC 2], roll to see if you're caught off-guard by what [PC 1] just did."
Player 2: <rolls well> "I'm good - not surprised."
DM: "OK, now roll to hit..."

Wisdom, in case you're unaware, tends to be the dump stat around here. 

What I'm starting to find annoying is when someone comes up with a good idea or action, one or more other players will jump in and try to act as if it was their idea all along.

Lanefan


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Exactly this.
> 
> I don't mind if my TOR character has a Bout of Madness, or my D&D character gets Charmed, or my CoC character goes insane.  I don't think of that as "loss of player agency" any more than being unconscious or dead is.
> 
> ...




It's actually more metagaming to ignore the NPC persuasion check and just do whatever you decide regardless. The social check is bridging the gap between a DM that is less/more eloquent than the NPC, your character (who is actually there), and you, who are several layers removed from the emotion and only getting the Cliff's notes version of life and speeches. I'm a firm believer that any game that bothers to have rules for social interactions needs to be able to enforce them. 

To me, it's ridiculous to only accept having your character's mind changed by magic. People are routinely convinced to do things against their better interest, react emotionally, etc. Basically another BS caster supremacy argument and allowing only magical characters really have narrative control in games.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 19, 2018)

I have never had an NPC make a social interaction skill check against the PC.  I'll t ell them what he says and if they are moved by it they are moved by it.  Then again I'd get rid of the skill system in the first place.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 19, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Then again I'd get rid of the skill system in the first place.



Physical skills (climb, jump, hide, etc.) are more or less liveable-withable if done right.  Any system that tries to enforce PC social skills, however, is in my view counterintuitive to actual in-character role-playing.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 19, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I have never had an NPC make a social interaction skill check against the PC.  I'll t ell them what he says and if they are moved by it they are moved by it.  Then again I'd get rid of the skill system in the first place.




I don't get that. We don't determine whether or not someone is stabbed by trying to hit the player with a stick or just let people say "nah, my character wouldn't die" . The player isn't the character. If someone is willing to accept if they get charmed by failing a save, they should also accept if they're tricked by failing an insight check against a deception check. 

There's a spectrum that this can take place on, so a player might get to silo off several things integral to the character that can't be acted upon, or social consequences other than simply being forced to comply.  I think part of the pushback from players is that too often there's only 1-2 rolls for a social encounter, whereas we don't have combat decided by a single dice roll. There should be multiple checks with various outcomes other than simply pass/fail.


----------



## Blue (Mar 19, 2018)

Folks are forgetting the most common mechanic, by this description, for short-circuiting player agency since the original D&D.

Hit points.

Incredibly common mechanic that can cause the player to sit out for short (knocked unconscious) to extended (death) periods.  Depending on how things go, you might not even be back by the end of the session and start the next session out - resurrection magic may not be close at hand or may involve an overnight rest to prepare.

Yet somehow, it's still in use and commonly accepted.

I think it's because the definition of loss of player agency given here is incomplete.  Accepting that there is risk and chance of failure IS player agency.  We accept it by playing a game where our characters can die or worse.  You can only remove player agency by doing things to them that they don't agree to.

And that is something you can know when you see it.  If your PC is mind controlled by the illithid while fighting them, that's an accepted risk and part of the game that the player has accepted, so it's not impacting their agency.  On the other hand if your PC is suddenly stopped by a omnipotent and unforeseen force that isn't part of the game but instead is the DM heavyhandedly protecting a precious plot point or favored NPC - that's a different story.

So when you think about player agency, think about what the player has freely agreed to, even if it can be detrimental to their character.  It's only when it's something the /player/ hasn't signed on for that you can really impact it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 19, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> I don't get that. We don't determine whether or not someone is stabbed by trying to hit the player with a stick or just let people say "nah, my character wouldn't die" . The player isn't the character. If someone is willing to accept if they get charmed by failing a save, they should also accept if they're tricked by failing an insight check against a deception check.
> 
> There's a spectrum that this can take place on, so a player might get to silo off several things integral to the character that can't be acted upon, or social consequences other than simply being forced to comply.  I think part of the pushback from players is that too often there's only 1-2 rolls for a social encounter, whereas we don't have combat decided by a single dice roll. There should be multiple checks with various outcomes other than simply pass/fail.




You and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Social situations should be largely be decided by DM and player interaction IMO.  In D&D I'd give a high CHA player more leeway when I'm deciding how a NPC reacts to what the player just told me though.  I'd prefer to put as much of the challenge on the player as I can in those situations rather than rolling dice to beat a number.  Different strokes and all that.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 19, 2018)

Blue said:


> I think it's because the definition of loss of player agency given here is incomplete.  Accepting that there is risk and chance of failure IS player agency.  We accept it by playing a game where our characters can die or worse.  You can only remove player agency by doing things to them that they don't agree to.



The only agency which a player can expect is that the player decides how their character _interprets_ information, and what they _want_ to do about that information. Stunning, death, and domination do not affect that in any way; you are still free to make decisions on behalf of your character, even though you have no ability to act on those decisions.

But that gets back into the ambiguity of the term, though. You're talking about the agency of the player, at the table, to affect the flow of the game. This thread is just about the agency of the player to effectively role-play their character - to make decisions for their character, regardless of their ability to act on those decisions.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 19, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> You and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Social situations should be largely be decided by DM and player interaction IMO.  In D&D I'd give a high CHA player more leeway when I'm deciding how a NPC reacts to what the player just told me though.  I'd prefer to put as much of the challenge on the player as I can in those situations rather than rolling dice to beat a number.  Different strokes and all that.




Well, it isnt like I don't give speeches or my players dont talk in character. What they say impacts the DC of the roll, grants (dis)advantage, or results in auto success/failure. I mainly think if there are rules for task resolution, they should apply to players as well, otherwise free form all of it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 19, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> Well, it isnt like I don't give speeches or my players dont talk in character. What they say impacts the DC of the roll, grants (dis)advantage, or results in auto success/failure. I mainly think if there are rules for task resolution, they should apply to players as well, otherwise free form all of it.




Well I did say I wanted to get rid of the skill system all together.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

sirlarkins said:


> The concept of player agency is a central pillar of all role-playing games.



 Nah, 'player agency' was just another term coined by The Forge in their long, fruitless quest to explain why bad games sell and good games languish in obscurity.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> What I _do_ mind...very much...is, in the absence of those sorts of conditions, the DM (or even another player) telling me what my character thinks or feels.   "A wood elf wouldn't do that" or "You would definitely not think of using fire on these creatures that keep healing" or "I'll use Persuade to convince your character that mine is right" or "You find Jeff's character so inspiring that you get your HP back."



Isn't that inherent in the Charisma stat? It's a measure of what other characters think of you. If one considers every object in the game world to follow the same rules then PCs must be equally persuadable as NPCs.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 19, 2018)

Do incentives count? Gygaxian D&D's xp for gold and magic items, coupled with the level track, acts as a very powerful driver of PC behaviour.


----------



## Blue (Mar 19, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> The only agency which a player can expect is that the player decides how their character _interprets_ information, and what they _want_ to do about that information. Stunning, death, and domination do not affect that in any way; you are still free to make decisions on behalf of your character, even though you have no ability to act on those decisions.
> 
> But that gets back into the ambiguity of the term, though. You're talking about the agency of the player, at the table, to affect the flow of the game. This thread is just about the agency of the player to effectively role-play their character - to make decisions for their character, regardless of their ability to act on those decisions.




But many of the posters are talking about the biggest impact to player agency is being made to sit out and being unable to control their character.  That's the "red line" that gets it unacceptable.

Yet it is trivially acceptable in every game of D&D I've ever played.  I've never seen a player upset because there's the possibility of getting knocked out.

If what a number of posters are talking about counts, then so do HP.  I'm not arguing that HP should be - I was using it as an example that the definition wasn't complete and things that many are arguing about as "too far" are actually common.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 19, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Well I did say I wanted to get rid of the skill system all together.



It's part of the meaning of the Charisma stat though.



> Charisma is the measure of the character’s combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism.



 - AD&D 1e PHB

Though I will concede that AD&D 1e does have a skill system, or rather lots of them.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 19, 2018)

Blue said:


> But many of the posters are talking about the biggest impact to player agency is being made to sit out and being unable to control their character.  That's the "red line" that gets it unacceptable.



I guess some posters are complaining about being sidelined, since this thread is growing in a lot of directions at once; for those players, it would make sense that being killed is the same category of bad as being charmed.

For players looking at this from an RP perspective, rather than a game perspective, the expectation is simply that we maintain the ability to make decisions as our characters would. For this group of players, there's a huge difference between being non-magically charmed and being killed, because the former violates the core premise of role-playing while the latter is simply a result of external factors that we never assumed we had any control over.


----------



## pming (Mar 19, 2018)

Hiya!

   ...and this is yet another reason why I prefer 1e/Hackmaster. Let me...'sum up'. An NPC with a high charisma talks to a PC. The NPC has the "Oration" skill and makes a really good roll. I tell the Player "His speech is very convincing...he got a 04 on his Oration check!...and virtually everyone in the room is starting to cheer and raise their hand in solidarity with him. What do you do?"...the player _should_ take that info into account and roleplay his character to the best of his ability. The Player knows his character better than me, the GM, sure...but if the player then decides his PC is unswayed and treats the speech as "just some clown trying to get people on his side", that falls into the "not-good RP'ing" side of things. The Player is ignoring everything that just happened in that RP'ing scene.

Why do I prefer 1e/HM4? Because each Player gets a 'rating' when it comes to getting XP at the end of the day. Players are rated from 1 to 5; "Excellent" down to "Deplorable", after each "Adventure". When the PC has enough XP to make it to next level, his total ratings are averaged. This gives a numerical value which is used to see how many weeks/days it takes for that PC to train/learn/advance to his new level.

So, a Player who consistently RP's "badly" is going to get a higher number which means it's going to take him longer and more money to officially rise to his new level. Ignoring logical RP'ing type situations WILL result in a worse overal average. It is in the best interest of the player to RP his character appropriately; simply ignoring stuff you don't like is going to cost you in the end.

Of course, there will be folks on this thread who chortle and guffaw at the idea of such archaic rules of "level advancement training", and that's ok. But from where I sit, a player who weakens a game session because they don't want to be "influenced by an NPC when they really should have been" is FAR less attractive as a player than one who makes decisions for his PC based on the "if I was this character and I was there...". Even if those decisions are detrimental (sometimes DEADLY) to his PC. I applaud a game system that has rules that pay attention to this sort of thing. Viva la Hackmaster! 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 20, 2018)

The main thing is to warn everyone ahead of time that the game isn't always butterflies and unicorns.  From the main introduction to our homebrew version of 1e:



			
				Victoria Rules said:
			
		

> But it's not all good times; the game also needs an edge of risk and danger, and can and must in its ebb and flow sometimes be rather cruel to its characters and – by extension – players; and players are well warned of this on entering the game.  It was a player, in fact, that introduced the rest of us to a very apt philosophy for the game:  "Dungeons without mortality are dungeons without life."




And no, I was not the player who authored that quote; I was the DM at the time it was said 30-ish years ago - by a player who plays with us still.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Mar 20, 2018)

Just a point about dying.

That, generally, is acceptable because it's a process.  It's not easy for your character to flat out die in later era D&D (although MUCH easier in 1e).  And, again, while you are riding the pines until your character comes back, it's still YOUR character.  No one is making you do stuff that you don't want to do.  Or, more frustratingly, no one is telling you, no, you cannot do that because I'm the DM and I say you cannot do that.

Look at the reactions to "The orc hits you and you die" vs "No, your character wouldn't do that because it contradicts your alignment."


----------



## Blue (Mar 20, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I guess some posters are complaining about being sidelined, since this thread is growing in a lot of directions at once; for those players, it would make sense that being killed is the same category of bad as being charmed.




And this was my point - that the overly broad definiton of player agency being used / some posters focused on included getting knocked unconscious or killed as loss of player agency.

My Call of Cthulu game mechanics knowledge isn't all that great, but Sanity hold much the same position in that game as an acknowledged and integral risk, but being called out as a loss of player agency is just as ludicrous as calling out hit points as a loss of player agency.



Saelorn said:


> For players looking at this from an RP perspective, rather than a game perspective, the expectation is simply that we maintain the ability to make decisions as our characters would. For this group of players, there's a huge difference between being non-magically charmed and being killed, because the former violates the core premise of role-playing while the latter is simply a result of external factors that we never assumed we had any control over.




I think we're on the same page, just approaching from opposite sides - the loss of player agency needs to be looked at from the RP perspective, not an overly-broad category that lumps in the normal and expected risks of play.


----------



## jasper (Mar 20, 2018)

This more of absolute player control vs rules mechanics causing pc compulsion.  Which a lot of players of RPGS will not accept. I find it funny, people are okay with going to jail in Monopoly. Okay when their little brothers Yells Sorry and sends you back to start. But totally freak out and low ball things when they set back and have to deal with a rules compulsion. 
Ex. Monk player who always novas the boss fight. Sudden pulls out his pillow attacks when charm and made to subdue his party.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 20, 2018)

pming said:


> An NPC with a high charisma talks to a PC. The NPC has the "Oration" skill and makes a really good roll. I tell the Player "His speech is very convincing...he got a 04 on his Oration check!...and virtually everyone in the room is starting to cheer and raise their hand in solidarity with him. What do you do?"...the player _should_ take that info into account and roleplay his character to the best of his ability. The Player knows his character better than me, the GM, sure...but if the player then decides his PC is unswayed and treats the speech as "just some clown trying to get people on his side", that falls into the "not-good RP'ing" side of things. The Player is ignoring everything that just happened in that RP'ing scene.




I disagree. To me this is no different from an npc rolling high on his Diplomacy skill. The player is under no obligation to agree with the npc, or to believe him.  All the die roll does, is determine how I describe the scene. But the players are free to interpret this as they like. This is exactly that player-agency-thing that is under discussion here, which I think is vital to enjoying D&D. 

Perhaps the players have arguments of their own that are just as valid. The crowd may not be swayed by that, because the npc rolled really high. But the players can think for themselves. Maybe they still believe the npc is wrong, no matter how persuasive he acts. Maybe they still believe him to be a liar. As a DM I'm not saying the npc is not a liar. But what I am saying, is that due to his high roll, he seems to be truthful and honest. And it sways everyone else (who is not under player control).


----------



## pming (Mar 20, 2018)

Hiya!



Imaculata said:


> I disagree. To me this is no different from an npc rolling high on his Diplomacy skill. The player is under no obligation to agree with the npc, or to believe him.  All the die roll does, is determine how I describe the scene. But the players are free to interpret this as they like. This is exactly that player-agency-thing that is under discussion here, which I think is vital to enjoying D&D.
> 
> Perhaps the players have arguments of their own that are just as valid. The crowd may not be swayed by that, because the npc rolled really high. But the players can think for themselves. Maybe they still believe the npc is wrong, no matter how persuasive he acts. Maybe they still believe him to be a liar. As a DM I'm not saying the npc is not a liar. But what I am saying, is that due to his high roll, he seems to be truthful and honest. And it sways everyone else (who is not under player control).




Ok, lets look at it this way. Lets replace "Diplomacy" with "Dex Save". And rather than an NPC trying to influence the PC, it's this: "You round the passageway and see a room with a corridor on the opposite side. The room is 50' x 50', with a 5' high ceiling. The floor is probably 5' below the corridors...it is also filled with thousands of sharp, stone, metal and wood spikes. Crossing the room looks painful.You will take...[rolls 6d6], wow, only 18 points of damage, half if you make a Dex save".  Now, the player looks at his PC and sees 29hp left...no chance of death.

The question now becomes...does the Player RP his character as in "Huh. Whatever. It can't kill me. I jump down and walk across". Or, does the Player RP his character as "Damn. We can't go through here. Not without almost dieing. We should try and find another way across or a different passage". Lastly, the Player could RP his character in the middle... "This is going to hurt, but we have to do it! The merchants family is being held by cannibal sub-halflings and every second counts. Get the healing spells ready!".

An NPC making a good Diplomacy check should have the same 'weight' on a Player RP'ing his character as any other situation...from a RP point of view. The PLAYER knows the NPC made a good roll, so it is up to the PLAYER to RP as he sees fit. A Player that knows that a trap will not do enough damage to kill them should still RP from the PC's perception; that of seeing a trap that is going to hurt him a lot, possibly kill him (the PC doesn't have any real idea of 'hit points', just like he doesn't have any concept of 'npcs'). My point was that the Player can and should RP his character from the RP perspective. If the group doesn't really do much RP'ing and mostly plays the game as a sort of "combat and story simulator", that's a different kettle of kippers.

Hopefully this explains my stance on "good RP'ing" during a game session...at least "good" from how my group and I see it at any rate.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 21, 2018)

pming said:


> Ok, lets look at it this way. Lets replace "Diplomacy" with "Dex Save".




I don't think that is a valid comparison. Dex saves are generally used to resolve your nimbleness or reflexes for something. Whereas Diplomacy is all about influencing other characters. Player agency is never a concern when it comes to the rules deciding if you get hit by something or not, or how well you perform a certain skill. But it is when it comes to charisma based skills.

I get what you are trying to say though.



> The question now becomes...does the Player RP his character as in "Huh. Whatever. It can't kill me. I jump down and walk across". Or, does the Player RP his character as "Damn. We can't go through here. Not without almost dieing. We should try and find another way across or a different passage". Lastly, the Player could RP his character in the middle... "This is going to hurt, but we have to do it! The merchants family is being held by cannibal sub-halflings and every second counts. Get the healing spells ready!".




I don't think any of these choices is inherently wrong. They are merely different approaches to playing the game.



> An NPC making a good Diplomacy check should have the same 'weight' on a Player RP'ing his character as any other situation...from a RP point of view.




But it's still up to the player to decide how his character responds. There's no wrong way to react here. He can have his character be convinced by the successful Diplomacy roll that the npc made, or he can ignore it. That's up to the player to decide.




> A Player that knows that a trap will not do enough damage to kill them should still RP from the PC's perception; that of seeing a trap that is going to hurt him a lot, possibly kill him (the PC doesn't have any real idea of 'hit points', just like he doesn't have any concept of 'npcs').




I don't think a player is obligated to do this at all. In fact, on many occasions my players have pondered whether they should take a certain spell into the upcoming battle, because their character may not have a reason to think the spell would be necessary. And that is always the moment where I as a DM remind them that it is still a game, and they can make what ever choice (good or bad) as they see fit. They can think as their characters, but they can also think as players. Neither is wrong.


----------



## pming (Mar 21, 2018)

Hiya!



Imaculata said:


> I don't think any of these choices is inherently wrong. They are merely different approaches to playing the game.
> 
> But it's still up to the player to decide how his character responds. There's no wrong way to react here. He can have his character be convinced by the successful Diplomacy roll that the npc made, or he can ignore it. That's up to the player to decide.




There are no pain rules in 5e either, yet when a PC has 50hp, and after a couple rounds is down to 4hp, the general consensus is that the PC just got his butt handed to him and is now staggering around, bleeding profusely, probably with broken bones and damaged organs, barely keeping themselves upright. Generally speaking.

Now, maybe your players and play style is different than mine, but IMC, my players (and I) "roleplay" such a savage combat outcome. Generally speaking. If a player just said "Oh well, I guess I'll just teleport back to the inn. I'll have dinner, maybe get drunk, see if I can get a bedwarmer as too.", well, that would sort of shatter our collective suspension of disbelief.

Of course, different game groups play differently. This is good. Variety is the spice of life and all that. But for me, I find it difficult to understand how "He got 35 on his Diplomacy check? Pffft! I say 'screw you!' and spit in his face"... is anything OTHER than "bad roleplaying". Just as if a PC/NPC got taken down 99% of their HP's in a couple rounds is capable of simply saying "Oh well...you win. Lets go have a beer!" and then carry on as if they are perfectly 'fine' is likewise "bad roleplaying".

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## delericho (Mar 21, 2018)

pming said:


> Of course, different game groups play differently. This is good. Variety is the spice of life and all that. But for me, I find it difficult to understand how "He got 35 on his Diplomacy check? Pffft! I say 'screw you!' and spit in his face"... is anything OTHER than "bad roleplaying".




Here's Loki scoring extremely high on his Intimidate check:

[video=youtube;wsbH_ljJ1fY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsbH_ljJ1fY[/video]

The PCs get to choose to be that one guy who stands up.

Civil War, similarly, has examples of Tony attempting to sway Cap with his extremely high social skills, and Cap choosing not to be swayed.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 21, 2018)

pming said:


> There are no pain rules in 5e either, yet when a PC has 50hp, and after a couple rounds is down to 4hp, the general consensus is that the PC just got his butt handed to him and is now staggering around, bleeding profusely, probably with broken bones and damaged organs, barely keeping themselves upright. Generally speaking.




Interestingly enough, we recently had a whole discussion about the way various groups on this forum narrate the loss of hit points. The answers showed that your interpretation is most definitely not the general consensus. There are plenty of groups that interpret HP-loss as your character's luck running out instead of accumulating physical wounds. The player characters are heroes, for whom luck is in their favor. So loss of hit points could also be a series of near misses and minor bruises.

I should note that the way I narrate hit point loss is similar to the way you describe it here. But I would not go as far as to call it the general consensus.



delericho said:


> The PCs get to choose to be that one guy who stands up.
> 
> Civil War, similarly, has examples of Tony attempting to sway Cap with his extremely high social skills, and Cap choosing not to be swayed.




What a fantastic example. This is exactly what I meant. No matter how well a character rolls on their diplomacy check, ultimately the players have agency, and decide how their characters react. They can choose to not be swayed, and I don't think that is bad role playing. It might even be great role playing, depending on their reasons.

Another example:

Many years ago I DM'd a third edition campaign, in which the players stumbled into a isolated fishing town, and visited the local tavern. One of the players played a dwarf, and he found himself intimidated by a local. The npc was just out to provoke him into a fight, and rolled *really high on his intimidate skill*. So here's how I described the scene:

_"The sailor towers over you, and he looks like he might be an even match if it came to a fight, despite his lack of armor or weaponry. He mocks your height as a dwarf, and exclaims that he could easily push you between the floor boards with his fingers. It seems obvious to you that the guy wants to provoke a fight. But you also get the impression that he has many friends in this tavern who are definitely on his side, and they are laughing at you. Though they seem unarmed, that does not mean that they are. This situation could turn bloody if they all ganged up on you."_

The player was under no obligation to be provoked into -or back down from this fight. But he chose the honorable route, and decided to simply leave the tavern. His character was above petty insults from some random stranger in a strange town. 

But had it come to a fight, that would be a fine choice as well. As a DM I can only set the scene, based on the roll of the npc, and inform the player how he perceives the situation. But how he reacts to it, that choice is all his own.


----------



## pming (Mar 21, 2018)

Hiya!

   Ok then...looks like I and my group are one of the outliers again.   No worries. I can see others view about player get's to decide, absolutely, I guess how we do it is that the players decide based on their view of what they think their characters....if they "weren't their characters" in a way... would do/behave. We enjoy that sort of game I guess.

Thanks for the chat! 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 21, 2018)

delericho said:


> The PCs get to choose to be that one guy who stands up.



I hope I don't need to explain why it's bad if certain abilities never work on PCs _because_ they are PCs.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 21, 2018)

pming said:


> Two, the Player is a self-entitled little whiny brat who doesn't think the rules of the spell/ability/whatever apply to _their_ PC because _their_ PC is super-extra-doubly-special. This player is under the false impression that they get to decide how a GM runs the game if they don't like it.




Hi ya, Paul

Could you think of another reason why a person might not like the thought of being forced to do something against their will other then being a self entitled whiny brat?  Or is it just whiny brats all the way down.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 21, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> But it's still up to the player to decide how his character responds. There's no wrong way to react here. He can have his character be convinced by the successful Diplomacy roll that the npc made, or he can ignore it. That's up to the player to decide.



I agree with what you say here, but to me this violates the Diplomacy rule in that for me PCs and NPCs are equal...and thus rules must apply to them equally.  So, if a PC can choose to ignore an excellent Diplomacy roll then so should an NPC be able to, which quickly leads to asking why not do the sensible thing and just chuck Diplomacy entirely.



> I don't think a player is obligated to do this at all. In fact, on many occasions my players have pondered whether they should take a certain spell into the upcoming battle, because their character may not have a reason to think the spell would be necessary. And that is always the moment where I as a DM remind them that it is still a game, and they can make what ever choice (good or bad) as they see fit. They can think as their characters, but they can also think as players. Neither is wrong.



And this is why I've come to loathe pre-memorization of spells...if you get unlucky and pick the wrong one(s) you're screwed for the day.

Lan-"slots and wild-card like 3e sorcerers for the win"-efan


----------



## pming (Mar 21, 2018)

Hiya!



Shasarak said:


> Hi ya, Paul
> 
> Could you think of another reason why a person might not like the thought of being forced to do something against their will other then being a self entitled whiny brat?  Or is it just whiny brats all the way down.




Nope. Whiny brats all the way.



Just kidding! In my posts I wasn't saying a player is "forced" to react in a RP appropriate way. What I was saying was that reacting in an RP appropriate way is just a more fulfilling way of playing an RPG. I hesitate to say "better way", because, as I also said, different folks play the game with different goals/desires. That's cool. For me and my group, trying to see things from the PC's perspective...regardless of the game mechanical outcome...is "the most fun" for us.

I guess I was being a bit flippant with the whole "whiny brat" thing.  I should have taken a two or five minute break, then re-read my post to see if anything was coming across to harshly or judgmental. My bad.   Thanks for calling me out on it. I forgot I even wrote that! Live and learn...live and learn.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## delericho (Mar 21, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I hope I don't need to explain why it's bad if certain abilities never work on PCs _because_ they are PCs.




I didn't say they never worked. But in this case they work* (or not) at the discretion of the player.

Simply by virtue of being _player_ characters, they are inherently different from almost all other characters in the game. It therefore shouldn't be a surprise that some things apply to them differently.

* IMC, IMO, and YMMV, of course.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 22, 2018)

I think it’s usually best to put such social interaction mechanics in the hands of the players. 

So it’s not a high Diplomacy roll by an NPC that affects the PC, but an Insight roll by the PC to pick up on the NPCs BS. This leaves the ultimate choice to believe or not up to the player. Even if his roll does nothing to help and the NPC seems convincing as can be, the player can still have his character say “I don’t care what this guy says, I don’t believe him.”

Whatever system you use and whatever skill or ability check may be relevant, have the player make the roll and then describe the reault based on that, and then let the player decide how the PC reacts. 

Doing it the other way around...having the NPCs roll affect the PC just seems too much like a reduction in agency, for lack of a better term. It removes the ability for the player to ultimately decide how his character will behave.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I agree with what you say here, but to me this violates the Diplomacy rule in that for me PCs and NPCs are equal...and thus rules must apply to them equally.  So, if a PC can choose to ignore an excellent Diplomacy roll then so should an NPC be able to, which quickly leads to asking why not do the sensible thing and just chuck Diplomacy entirely.




I think you might be looking at this the wrong way. The player is not ignoring the Diplomacy check. He is choosing for himself how his character reacts to the situation. And in that respect npc's and players are no different. If a player rolls high on their intimidate, it may scare an npc away, or it may provoke them into a fight, at the DM's discretion.



Lanefan said:


> And this is why I've come to loathe pre-memorization of spells...if you get unlucky and pick the wrong one(s) you're screwed for the day.




In my opinion this is more a matter of properly preparing for the unknown, by picking a wide array of spells. Its one of the things I actually find compelling about playing a spellcaster. If your spell selection is so bad that you are screwed for the entire day, then you probably focused too much on one possible situation, which you should never do.


----------



## delericho (Mar 22, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> And in that respect npc's and players are no different. If a player rolls high on their intimidate, it may scare an npc away, or it may provoke them into a fight, at the DM's discretion.




That's a good point! Certainly, when adjudicating Persuasion, I'll apply a higher DC for harder tasks - a corrupt guard is easier to bribe than an honest one, for instance. And some things simply cannot be achieved using mundane persuasion (it's nigh-impossible to persuade someone to knowingly betray their nearest and dearest, for instance).


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 22, 2018)

delericho said:


> (it's nigh-impossible to persuade someone to knowingly betray their nearest and dearest, for instance).




Except, in the really real world, people are convinced to act against their own best interests, or those of their loved ones all the time (e.g. all the people at Jonestown who drank that poisoned kool-aid).


----------



## delericho (Mar 22, 2018)

Michael Silverbane said:


> Except, in the really real world, people are convinced to act against their own best interests, or those of their loved ones all the time (e.g. all the people at Jonestown who drank that poisoned kool-aid).




That's why I made sure to say 'knowingly'.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 22, 2018)

delericho said:


> That's why I made sure to say 'knowingly.




Many (not all) of the people at Jonestown knew that the Kool-Aid was poisoned. There is also the more recent case of the Massachusetts woman recently convicted of convincing her boyfriend to kill himself, among innumerable other examples.


----------



## delericho (Mar 22, 2018)

Michael Silverbane said:


> Many (not all) of the people at Jonestown knew that the Kool-Aid was poisoned. There is also the more recent case of the Massachusetts woman recently convicted of convincing her boyfriend to kill himself, among innumerable other examples.




And that would be why I also said _nigh-_impossible. The reason those incidents are famous is because they're extremely rare.

They're also not normal cases - one the culmination of long-term cult indoctrination, and the other a case where the victim was already suicidal.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 22, 2018)

They're only extremely rare because they are the most extreme cases of such action.  Look at all of the millions of people who smoke, or overeat, or spend too much money on their romantic partners. These are all instances of people acting against their own best interests, usually at the urging of someone else. It is *incredibly common*.


----------



## delericho (Mar 22, 2018)

Michael Silverbane said:


> They're only extremely rare because they are the most extreme cases of such action.  Look at all of the millions of people who smoke, or overeat, or spend too much money on their romantic partners. These are all instances of people acting against their own best interests, usually at the urging of someone else. It is *incredibly common*.




Sigh. You've now managed to miss all three of the things I said - 'knowingly', 'nigh-impossible' and "*betray* their nearest and dearest".

Yes, it is possible to persuade someone to do long-term damage to themselves or others by selling them a short-term pleasure. You won't have the same success persuading them to go home and kill their children.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 22, 2018)

delericho said:


> Sigh. You've now managed to miss all three of the things I said - 'knowingly', 'nigh-impossible' and "*betray* their nearest and dearest".
> 
> Yes, it is possible to persuade someone to do long-term damage to themselves or others by selling them a short-term pleasure. You won't have the same success persuading them to go home and kill their children.




Not with _that_ attitude, you won't.

There are tons of other historical examples of things like, people voluntarily going with their families into gas chambers, or families killing their daughters because of a regulatory policy on the number of allowable children, as well as numbers on extortion, scamming, people remaining in abusive relationships, allowing their children to be abused, and so on.

It must be that all those people have been coerced by magic, and not that it is reasonably easy to get other people to do what you want.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 22, 2018)

delericho said:


> Sigh. You've now managed to miss all three of the things I said - 'knowingly', 'nigh-impossible' and "*betray* their nearest and dearest".
> 
> Yes, it is possible to persuade someone to do long-term damage to themselves or others by selling them a short-term pleasure. You won't have the same success persuading them to go home and kill their children.




Its exactly as the Captain America example illustrated. Loki can make the most epic speech, and roll really high on his persuasion/diplomacy/social skill. That may sway the crowd, but Captain America can still stand up for his principles and defy him. 

The players can do the same.

But you are also never sure how an npc is going to react. No matter how high a player rolls on their diplomacy, it is not going to make an npc believe things that they know to be untrue.

I had a situation in my pirate campaign where one of the players was trying to convince a merchant, that one of their crew members was an honest and good man, and that the merchant's negative image of him was not correct. But despite his high diplomacy roll, the merchant refused to let this drunk pirate marry his daughter. Because the merchant was of a higher social standing, and for his daughter to be associated with this notorious drunk, and a pirate of all things, would be a severe embarrassment. However his words did make the merchant think on the matter.


----------



## delericho (Mar 22, 2018)

Michael Silverbane said:


> There are tons of other historical examples of things like, people voluntarily going with their families into gas chambers, or families killing their daughters because of a regulatory policy on the number of allowable children, as well as numbers on extortion, scamming, people remaining in abusive relationships, allowing their children to be abused, and so on.




We're _way_ beyond the scope of a single Persuasion check here.


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 22, 2018)

Social skills don’t work on PCs.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Mar 22, 2018)

sirlarkins said:


> The concept of player agency is a central pillar of all role-playing games. It is a balancing factor against the omnipotent, omniscient Game Master. For the purposes of this article, we will be focusing on the smaller-scale application of player agency and the role of game mechanics that negate or modify such agency.
> 
> View attachment 95347​
> From the very first iteration of *Dungeons & Dragons* in 1974, there have been mechanics in place in RPGs to force certain decisions upon players. A classic *D&D* example is the _charm person_ spell, which allows the spell caster to bring someone under their control and command. (The 1983 *D&D Basic Set* even includes such a possible outcome in its very first tutorial adventure, in which your hapless Fighter may fall under the sway of Bargle and "decide" to let the outlaw magic-user go free even after murdering your friend Aleena!)
> ...




So to start with, I don't think that what you are describing is taking away player agency. I can't stand that term to start with, because there is no agreed-upon definition of it, particularly when it comes to RPGs.

So I'll give you my definition:

Player Agency: The actions and decisions that a player is allowed to make _as defined by the rules of the game_. In an RPG, the rules of the game also include, to a significant degree, the setting. So taking away player agency inhibits that. But you can't compare player agency between games, because no game operating within its rules takes away player agency.

I'll give you a non-RPG example. In soccer (football for the rest of the world), you cannot touch the ball with you hands. Is that taking away player agency? Not at all. It makes no difference that in (American) football that you can touch the ball with your hands. It's a different game. The player still has their full agency to play the game within the rules.

However, if you tell a player that they are too good, and that they are only allowed to score 3 goals in a game, after which they are pulled from the game, then their agency is being impacted - provided that it's not a rule that applies to _all_ players. In that case, you might choose not to play because you don't like the rules, but if the rule exists in the game for all players, then it is not impacting your player agency.

In an RPG, the rules are often impacted by the setting. The obvious modifications are to available races, classes, etc. House rules also apply. As long as the rules apply equally to all, and the rules aren't being changed at the whim of the referee or DM, then they aren't affecting player agency.

Having said that, you might not like rules that take away your _character agency_. The Pendragon and Cthulhu rules do this. When certain circumstances are met, the player either has additional input that requires them to roleplay in a certain way, or the GM takes over the character's actions for a period of time. 

Madness and Insanity have always been issues with any RPG. I love the way 5e handles it, by moving it into the realm of role-playing. The problem is, it would be disruptive at the very least, and downright risky in terms of real relationships at the table, if the kind of madness that Cthulhu is simulating to be addressed solely through role-playing. That's not to say that some groups couldn't handle it, but in most cases when a player has a character that is dangerous to the others in the party, or the character is argumentative or combative to the degree that it brings the game to a halt, it's very, very hard to run the game itself.

Some examples (based specifically on comments where people across the internet have specifically flagged "player agency" in threads I've participated in): 

A game that requires players to start with pre-generated characters, or partially pre-generated characters does not take away player agency. The player doesn't participate in the full character creation process that RPGs often include, but they still have 100% control over what to do with that character. This isn't that different than an actor being given a role in a play or movie. They have a framework provided that they flesh out based on that framework. Even a script that includes all of the dialogue doesn't take away "actor agency," it just provides a more restrictive framework.

Likewise, a game that requires the players to roll stats, even in order, does not alter player agency.

Rules that might result in somebody sitting out for a period of time (death of a character, unconscious, or even the party splitting up), do not alter player agency. They reduce "in game time." This isn't all that different than playing defense in football, or when your team is at bat in baseball. In many sports you might be on the bench for most if not all of the game. While RPGs aren't sports, and they are designed for everybody to be able to play as much as possible, if the table is more concerned with continuity than providing a character to a player who's character just died hundreds of miles from civilization, then they might be out for a while.

Some games are designed to specifically eliminate everybody (10 Candles, for example), but it doesn't mean that the ones that die early aren't still part of the game, and can't participate as spectators and experience the night in a meaningful way. Science fiction games are often more susceptible to something of this nature, if they are literally thousands, if not millions, of miles from anybody else, and somebody dies. An _Alien_-based RPG would be of this sort, but it certainly would still be exciting to see how things turn out, even if you died early.

The examples you've given - Cthulhu and Pendragon - don't (can't) inherently take away player agency. Although Cthulhu might have fewer safeguards in place. That's really going to depend on whether the players and the GM are all on the same page and they trust the GM to be fair.

And that, to me, is really the most important thing. The DM and players need to be in agreement about what agency the players have. What they are and aren't allowed to do in the rules, and when they have control of their character and when they don't. I've never had issues with a player being upset when they've had to "sit out" because of certain circumstances. I give the players options (discussed at session 0, and out-of game discussions as well), but also in the moment, the table and the player are free to speak up if they want to address it specifically. When we're in a situation where it seems clear that it might be a while, I explicitly give them options and let them decide how we'll handle it. Almost always, they choose to sit out and enjoy the story for what it is, and what's going on at the time.

I should also point out, that I consider all players to be participants, even when their character isn't present in a given scene. In an RPG, everything is in our heads, and we often forget things, fail to connect things, act out of character, etc. I do not restrict my players from participating, viewing them as part of the "collective memory/conscience/intelligence" of any given character or group of characters. That doesn't mean they get to act for others, but speaking up to remind somebody of something they found three weeks ago that might be important, is fine. We also operate under the general assumption that with all of the time the characters spend together, that they will relate experiences of importance away from the group when they have the chance. Unless there is something they specifically don't want to share, then everybody is at the table and they are assumed to know what happened once they are back together.


----------



## Skepticultist (Mar 22, 2018)

I have to agree with Ilbranteloth that this thread seems to be about _character agency_ and not _player agency_.

As a general rule I avoid using villains and monsters that rely on _mind control_ abilities, as I find the outcome of using such effects is generally boring and uninteresting at the table.  I'm fine with using very short-term effects, such as _command_ spell used to force a player to "Halt!" and lose an action, or even a villain using a _mass charm_ to escape the party, but long-term dominations and charms mostly result in me controlling the character, and I consider that a poor outcome.  There's very little I find less interesting that forcing a player to sit out a combat while I play their character against the rest of the party, and my experience is that most players either don't enjoy being forced to attack their fellow players or enjoy it _way too much_.

Occasionally I will find myself running a game with a player who is an _exceptionally_ good role-player with a high commitment to the game and campaign, and when that happens I have used both long-term domination magic (like _geas_) and outright replacement of the character (such as with a _doppleganger_), but I leave control of the character with the player.  I simply discuss the idea with player before it comes up in game, and if I get a buy-in from them, then we move ahead.  At this point the player is essentially a co-DM, a conspirator helping me pull a long con on the rest of the players. 

When it comes to _nonmagical_ forms of influence, I generally eschew using any kind of social skills except in very limited circumstances.  I mostly run HERO System and the Social Skills in that game are largely intended for use against generic NPCs. I allow players to use skills like Trader, Oratory, Streetwise, and High Society when they do things like sell goods, try to convince crowds of people, or gather information/rumors.

I don't allow NPCs to use Social Skills to  influence PC actions, or the inverse.  A villain can't roll Persuade and convince the PCs to leave him alone, and likewise the PCs can't roll Persuade to convince a villain to surrender without a fight.  That's what role-playing is for.  It does mean that a player can't really play a character who is much more charismatic and persuasive than they are themselves, but I'm old school and okay with that.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 22, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Some examples (based specifically on comments where people across the internet have specifically flagged "player agency" in threads I've participated in):
> 
> A game that requires players to start with pre-generated characters, or partially pre-generated characters does not take away player agency. The player doesn't participate in the full character creation process that RPGs often include, but they still have 100% control over what to do with that character. This isn't that different than an actor being given a role in a play or movie. They have a framework provided that they flesh out based on that framework. Even a script that includes all of the dialogue doesn't take away "actor agency," it just provides a more restrictive framework.
> 
> ...



And then there's the further element of player agency, being promoted (not by me!) in some other threads, to do with being able to author setting elements and gain some narrative control - depending on what the dice say when you try.  It seems some games e.g. Burning Wheel bake this sort of thing into their rules.



> And that, to me, is really the most important thing. The DM and players need to be in agreement about what agency the players have. What they are and aren't allowed to do in the rules, and when they have control of their character and when they don't. I've never had issues with a player being upset when they've had to "sit out" because of certain circumstances. I give the players options (discussed at session 0, and out-of game discussions as well), but also in the moment, the table and the player are free to speak up if they want to address it specifically. When we're in a situation where it seems clear that it might be a while, I explicitly give them options and let them decide how we'll handle it. Almost always, they choose to sit out and enjoy the story for what it is, and what's going on at the time.



Exactly.

And there's always ways to mitigate sit-out time if it looks like it\ll be a while: having party NPCs or henches to temporarily take over and-or playing more than one PC at a time are two we use constantly. 

Lanefan


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Mar 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And then there's the further element of player agency, being promoted (not by me!) in some other threads, to do with being able to author setting elements and gain some narrative control - depending on what the dice say when you try.  It seems some games e.g. Burning Wheel bake this sort of thing into their rules.




Yes. If that's part of the rules of the game, then something that takes that away (outside of the rules themselves) is impacting their player agency.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 23, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I still don't like the use of the term "agency" for RPGs. It's not a term you can tell to a stranger and expect them to know what you mean. It's unnecessary jargon.




It's needed jargon - if we hadn't borrowed Psychology's term, we'd have had to invent a new one.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 23, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> It's needed jargon - if we hadn't borrowed Psychology's term, we'd have had to invent a new one.




It has a definition. You are capable of using the words in the definition instead of the jargon. And unlike the jargon, the words in the definition will make sense to someone who hasn't heard the jargon.

It still amazes me that fans will go on for paragraph after paragraph reiterating the same points over and over again, but think they need this sort of shorthand.  Really, typing out the words that the jargon means is that time consuming you just can't bring yourself to do it, in between your point-by-point lengthy refutation involving typing out the word "quote" with brackets and another one with a "/" as you split someone's text into 14 different points to refute individually? THAT you have time for, but not a few words (like, "sense of control over my actions") to describe a jargon concept?


----------



## superstition (Mar 23, 2018)

How's this for a scenario?

1) GM creates NPC that is a higher level but only with mental stats, but physical ones

2) GM attempts to use persuasion or deception on PC, using the basic rules that exist in the core book

3) player whines, lectures about correct GM etiquette, then threatens mutiny if the GM doesn't cave

4) player's mutiny destroys the plot hook, wasting hours of detailed prep

5) GM tries to wing much of the rest of session but is mentally fatigued from all the prep work... barely manages

6) Rules lawyer at the table is emboldened by the mutiny and starts questioning correct rulings

7) player then tells his/her friends that the GM is an incompetent beginner who doesn't cater to the preferences of the player

8) (GM had designed an entire area to mainly cater to that player but the plot hook was needed to get there)

9) player and friends tell the GM later that the campaign wasn't authentic to the franchise

10) same player has history of GMing without having done any prep work — tells people to leaf through the books or abandons the session to sleep

11) forum-goers tell the GM that it was bad design because it used a plot hook that relied on the core rules being taken seriously


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Look at the reactions to "The orc hits you and you die" vs "No, your character wouldn't do that because it contradicts your alignment."



Isn 't this an argument against _bad_ social mechanics? (Eg ones that let the GM veto action declarations on grounds that they know your character better than you do.)



delericho said:


> Here's Loki scoring extremely high on his Intimidate check:
> 
> [video=youtube;wsbH_ljJ1fY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsbH_ljJ1fY[/video]
> 
> ...





Imaculata said:


> Its exactly as the Captain America example illustrated. Loki can make the most epic speech, and roll really high on his persuasion/diplomacy/social skill. That may sway the crowd, but Captain America can still stand up for his principles and defy him.
> 
> The players can do the same.





Imaculata said:


> No matter how well a character rolls on their diplomacy check, ultimately the players have agency, and decide how their characters react. They can choose to not be swayed, and I don't think that is bad role playing. It might even be great role playing, depending on their reasons.



Here is an argument with exactly the same structure:

When the building blew up, all the extras were injured or killed, but Captain America survived the blast and even stayed on his feet! So therefore PCs are not affected by the rules for explostions.​
I think everyone would agree that I've just given a bad argument. The argument in relation to social mechanics is no different. All you're pointing out is that, from the mere fact that the result on a Diplomacy roll is X, we can't work out its effect on any given PC, any more than we can work out what effect a DC 20, 30 hp explosion will have. In both cases we need to look at the PC's abilities. (Which is how all RPGs that actually _have_ player-side social mechanics handle it.)

In the game I GMed on the weekend (Cortex+ Heroic), one PC tried to explain to some frightened villagers how they could escape a difficult situation (stuck in the cold and snow being pursued by giants) but found himself reaching the conclusion that there was no solution to the problem of how to escape! (Mechanically, the PC was stressed out by mental stress.) Later on, another PC took mental stress as a result of an argument with another PC about how (if at all) they should go about trying to save the villagers from the giants.

LIke  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] said upthread, if the player doesn't want to be hindered by the penalty then actions can be declared that don't rely upon being clear-headed. And like  [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] said, being stressed out from mental stress has no greater effect on player participation in the game than does being stressed out from physical stress.


----------



## delericho (Mar 23, 2018)

superstition said:


> How's this for a scenario?
> 
> 1) GM creates NPC that is a higher level but only with mental stats, but physical ones
> 
> 2) GM attempts to use persuasion or deception on PC, using the basic rules that exist in the core book...




Your GM has screwed up here, and that's true whether those mechanics work or not. Compelling the PCs to go on an adventure that the players don't want, whether that's achieved by mundane social skills or via the use of compulsion magic, is a really bad idea. Assuming your players don't outright mutiny, you're still setting yourself up for a bad game experience.

When constructing adventure hooks, the GM really needs to find a way to motivate both the characters _and their players_ to go on the adventure. In fact, the latter is the more important - if the players want to play the adventure, they'll find a way to square it with their characters' motivations.

(The reactions you describe for the players in later steps in your chain are way over the top, of course. But I would hardly consider them a typical response.)


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 23, 2018)

superstition said:


> 2) GM attempts to use persuasion or deception on PC, using the basic rules that exist in the core book
> 
> 3) player whines, lectures about correct GM etiquette, then threatens mutiny if the GM doesn't cave
> 
> ...



I'm not saying that mutiny was necessarily the correct choice here, but no GM should ever build a single point of failure into their entire session _and expect the dice to cooperate_. If the rules allowed for the possibility of the PCs resisting that skill, then the GM should have planned for that possibility. If the rules _didn't_ allow for the possibility, _then_ you've essentially dropped rocks on the party, which is a significant breach of etiquette and players are entirely justified in leaving.

If your entire campaign hinges on one die roll, then a better solution is to not play that out during the game. Put it in your backstory. Start the game with the players having already agreed to it.


----------



## Skepticultist (Mar 23, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I'm not saying that mutiny was necessarily the correct choice here, but no GM should ever build a single point of failure into their entire session _and expect the dice to cooperate_. If the rules allowed for the possibility of the PCs resisting that skill, then the GM should have planned for that possibility. If the rules _didn't_ allow for the possibility, _then_ you've essentially dropped rocks on the party, which is a significant breach of etiquette and players are entirely justified in leaving.
> 
> If your entire campaign hinges on one die roll, then a better solution is to not play that out during the game. Put it in your backstory. Start the game with the players having already agreed to it.




I learned this lesson running a game of WEG Star Wars.  The first session had the players tasked with extricating an Imperial defector from an Imperial controlled city.  They were supposed to meet the defector at a set of coordinates, and when they got there a pair of bounty hunters were supposed to show up, snatch the defector, and flee with him.  One of the bounty hunters was well within the party's capabilities to defeat, the second was basically Boba Fett -- full hard armor, jet pack, the whole deal.  Because the meet occurred beyond a security check, the only weapons the party had on them were blaster pistols, and the second bounty hunter could _easily_ survive a round or two of blaster pistol fire, so I knew he'd be able to grab the defector and jet pack away, leaving his comrade to get killed by the PCs.  The entire adventure I'd written, all of my prepared material, assumed that the PCs would have to retrieve the defector from the bounty hunter before he delivered him to his employer.

Then the Gambler character whipped out his Hold Out Pistol, weeniest gun in the whole game, and managed to roll over 70 points of damage thanks to an exploding wild die that rolled something like 6 or 7 sixes in a row.  The second bounty hunter's head popped like balloon.  He was dead like four or five times over.

Never, ever expect the dice too cooperate.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 24, 2018)

delericho said:


> Your GM has screwed up here, and that's true whether those mechanics work or not. Compelling the PCs to go on an adventure that the players don't want, whether that's achieved by mundane social skills or via the use of compulsion magic, is a really bad idea. Assuming your players don't outright mutiny, you're still setting yourself up for a bad game experience.
> 
> When constructing adventure hooks, the GM really needs to find a way to motivate both the characters _and their players_ to go on the adventure. In fact, the latter is the more important - *if the players want to play the adventure, they'll find a way to square it with their characters' motivations.*
> 
> (The reactions you describe for the players in later steps in your chain are way over the top, of course. But I would hardly consider them a typical response.)




Emphasis mine.  It's a "Session Zero" sort of thing but I always flat out tell players to bring characters who are "ready to adventure".  Because I've found that at times if I don't, players will make characters whose life-long goals are to hole up in a library.  Though the solution to that is simple:  
"Okay, your character wanders off to go do that, the party on the other hand is going to go on an adventure, so please roll up a new character who is interested in _that_." -You'll either weed out the snowflakes who want the limelight on their attention-hog of a character, or you'll get people to be ready for an adventure.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 24, 2018)

superstition said:


> How's this for a scenario?
> 
> 1) GM creates NPC that is a higher level but only with mental stats, but physical ones
> 
> ...




The GM made up a design that wasn't smart due to it having a bottleneck, but regardless it's very clear that the group's dynamics are totally, utterly out of whack. As in "why are these people playing with each other?" out of whack. Or "what the heck kind of crazy-@$$ power struggles are going on?" out of whack. I don't know, of course, but at least one of the players is the kind of person I'd vote off the island and if that didn't work, I'd vote myself off the island.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 24, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Emphasis mine.  It's a "Session Zero" sort of thing but I always flat out tell players to bring characters who are "ready to adventure".  Because I've found that at times if I don't, players will make characters whose life-long goals are to hole up in a library.  Though the solution to that is simple:
> "Okay, your character wanders off to go do that, the party on the other hand is going to go on an adventure, so please roll up a new character who is interested in _that_." -You'll either weed out the snowflakes who want the limelight on their attention-hog of a character, or you'll get people to be ready for an adventure.




I think you can have characters who are "ready" but seem to always grab onto things that are orthogonal to the rest of the group and have too strong an individual agenda. That can be a problem, too.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Here is an argument with exactly the same structure:
> 
> When the building blew up, all the extras were injured or killed, but Captain America survived the blast and even stayed on his feet! So therefore PCs are not affected by the rules for explostions.​
> I think everyone would agree that I've just given a bad argument. The argument in relation to social mechanics is no different.




Actually, it is different.  

The difference is that the effects of an explosion are about physics and physiology, and the effects of the social interaction are about thoughts.  

If the GM can tell me what my character thinks, then he's not really my character, it's the GM's character.

If you really need my character to behave a certain way, then use magic and take control of him temporarily.  (Or, heck, let me know before the session that it would be really helpful if I did X not Y.) 

But don't tell me what my character thinks.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think you can have characters who are "ready" but seem to always grab onto things that are orthogonal to the rest of the group and have too strong an individual agenda. That can be a problem, too.




Sure, and to an extent, it's why I encourage people to make multiple characters so that if a character achieves their goal, or discovers a new goal that isn't party related they can leave the party, go do their own thing and someone new can join the party.  Maybe that initial character can rejoin the party at some later date, maybe they'll show up as a friendly NPC...or not.

To add: it is also why I generally do not impose reduced levels upon new characters.  I want the players to feel free to interchange their characters as they feel is appropriate.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 24, 2018)

Skepticultist said:


> Then the Gambler character whipped out his Hold Out Pistol, weeniest gun in the whole game, and managed to roll over 70 points of damage thanks to an exploding wild die that rolled something like 6 or 7 sixes in a row.  The second bounty hunter's head popped like balloon.  He was dead like four or five times over.
> 
> Never, ever expect the dice too cooperate.




One of the great things about D&D, is this unpredictability of the dice and the actions of the players. In a recent session of my pirate campaign I had my players take on a large fleet of pirate ships, lead by a creepy cult. The leader of the cult had a massive greatship, way more powerful than the ship of the players. So obviously they'll take out the other ships, but the leader gets away... right? ...RIGHT? 

Nope!

The players focused on the leader first, coordinating their own fleet to destroy the Greatship. Some of the other important cult members got away. One of those break-away cult ships they didn't actually see sink, so it seems reasonable that the captain got away. Another they did see sink, but the captain was a master illusionist, so the players themselves said: That guy is definitely still alive, and we love it, because an illusionist would totally pretend his ship sank. But the cult's flagship is dead in the water, and the next session(s) will have the players exploring the greatship, with a big battle with the cult leader at the end. So as a DM I have to assume they kill him, and plan ahead.

This is a very interesting turn of events for me as a DM. Because if the players kill the cult leader, then how will the rest of the evil cult continue? They are pretty much one of the main threats in my campaign, but without a leader, will one of the other members take over? Will this change the cult's focus and strategy, and will that new leader be accepted by all members? The idea that one of the cult members may reject the new leadership, break away, and perhaps ally with the players, is really interesting narratively. And so a whole new chain of interesting plot ideas can flow from this unexpected decission by the players.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Actually, it is different.
> 
> The difference is that the effects of an explosion are about physics and physiology, and the effects of the social interaction are about thoughts.



If this is a mind-body thing, I'm not sure I agree with the metaphysics.

If it's a claim about the nature of a character, then I disagree - as elaborated below.



Elfcrusher said:


> If the GM can tell me what my character thinks, then he's not really my character, it's the GM's character.



If my conception of my PC is as strong, and my PC gets defeated in hand-to-hand combat, it turns out I was (to some extent, in some fashion) wrong.

If my conception of my PC is as quick, and my PC is outrun, or out-drawn, it turns out I was (to some extent, in some fashion) wrong.

If my conception of my PC is as brave and resolute, and my PC is in fact cowed, then it turns out I was (to some extent, in some fashion) wrong.

All these things can happen, in various ways, in various RPGs. In Classic Traveller, for instance, PCs are subject to the morale rules. From the point of view of _my authorship of my PC as an element in a ficiton_, bravery is not more special than strength or speed.



Elfcrusher said:


> If you really need my character to behave a certain way, then use magic and take control of him temporarily.



This seems like a separate point. Why would the GM "need" a PC to behave a certain way?

When the players in my Traveller game make a morale check for their PCs; or when the players in my Burning Wheel game make steel checks for their PCs; it's not because anyone _needs_ them to act a certain way. It's because the game puts their bravery into play in the same way that it puts other aspects of their nature and personality into play.

And in any event, none of this has any bearing on my point that you can't use the Captain America example - ie one person not being swayed by Loki - to prove that social mechanics don't work. All that proves is that social mechanics (like explosion mechanics, encumbrance mechanices, wealth mechanics, etc) need to take account of the character in some fashion (a dragon should be harder to blow up than a goblin; a giant should be able to carry more than a human child; a wealthy character should be able to afford more nights of revelry than a poor one; Captain America should be harder to intimidate than an ordinary person).


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 24, 2018)

shidaku said:


> To add: it is also why I generally do not impose reduced levels upon new characters.  I want the players to feel free to interchange their characters as they feel is appropriate.




Yeah, that's one thing I dispensed with a long time ago, for reasons you lay out. It also means that character death doesn't involve pushing the reset button. It needs to be handled in a way so that new PCs aren't clearly better than old ones, though.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 25, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If my conception of my PC is as strong, and my PC gets defeated in hand-to-hand combat, it turns out I was (to some extent, in some fashion) wrong.
> 
> If my conception of my PC is as quick, and my PC is outrun, or out-drawn, it turns out I was (to some extent, in some fashion) wrong.
> 
> If my conception of my PC is as brave and resolute, and my PC is in fact cowed, then it turns out I was (to some extent, in some fashion) wrong.



Or, in all cases above, simply unlucky.

Your conception could be as solid as the rock of Gibraltar - that doesn't mean the dice are going to give a flip. 

Now if being defeated like this is happening all the time, then your point is valid.



> This seems like a separate point. Why would the GM "need" a PC to behave a certain way?



Probably because said DM has - likely by mistake - written herself and-or the PCs into a plot corner or a hopeless dead end and needs to haul them out.  Either that or her plot demands one certain key action or decision from a PC and nobody looks like they're going to do it.

It's bad DMing, but over the long run we've probably all done it at least once - none of us are perfect.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 25, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah, that's one thing I dispensed with a long time ago, for reasons you lay out. It also means that character death doesn't involve pushing the reset button. It needs to be handled in a way so that new PCs aren't clearly better than old ones, though.



The only problem with this comes if players use this rule as a way of in effect avoiding or negating bad or negative things happening to their characters during the run of play, rather than playing through them.

I also like interchanging characters both as player and DM, and if you're bringing a retired character back in we'll update it and see if it's done anything significant in the meantime.  Brand new characters, however, always come in at a lower level than the party average.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 25, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If this is a mind-body thing, I'm not sure I agree with the metaphysics.
> 
> If it's a claim about the nature of a character, then I disagree - as elaborated below.
> 
> ...




But your character's _conception of himself_ can still be that he is strong, and quick, and brave.  Even in the face of accumulating evidence to the contrary.  The DM is free to provide as much evidence as he/she desires, and the player is free to determine how stubbornly the character refuses to acknowledge that evidence. 




> All these things can happen, in various ways, in various RPGs. In Classic Traveller, for instance, PCs are subject to the morale rules. From the point of view of _my authorship of my PC as an element in a ficiton_, bravery is not more special than strength or speed.




Sure.  And Call of Cthuhlu has insanity rules, and The One Ring has shadow madness rules, etc.  Those, and many others, are specific examples codified in the rules about when the player "loses control" of their character.

D&D has them, too.  Usually they fall under the rubric of "magic".  What is wrong...in my opinion...is to cross that line outside of one of the special rules meant to cover it.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> What is wrong...in my opinion...is to cross that line outside of one of the special rules meant to cover it.



I agree that (as a general rule) when playing a RPG it helps to stick to the expectations created by the rules (especially if playing among strangers or in the early stages of a campaign, ie before distinctive table expectations have been able to emerge).

But isn't this thread about what those expectations might be?

What I was trying to get at with my post comparing strength, speed and courage was that (I think) there is nothing distinctive about _courage_ rather than (say) strength being a key component of my character conception, and so nothing distinctive about mechanics that put pressure on my PC's courage rather than my PC's strength. Both force me to ask (putting it into in-character first person) "Am I really who I thought I was?"

What the actual mechanics should be whereby that pressure is applied is a further matter. I generally prefer systems where (1) the players have choices about resource allocation so they can try and preserve their conception of their character; and (2) I also like an approach to narration that tends to permt this. 

An example of what I mean by (2): one time in my 4e game the paladin of the Raven Queen got turned into a frog; mechanically, the duration of the effect was one round; when the PC turned back, the PC swore the Raven Queen's vengeance upon the NPC transmuter; the NPC taunted back "I already turned you into a frog"; and the player responded, in character and without missing a beat, "Yes, but she turned me back." This narration - which establishes the in-fiction meaning of the mechanically-prescribed events - preserves the player's conception of his/her PC and the character's relationship to his divine patron.

And thinking about (1): sometimes, the player simply won't have enough resources left, and so even Captain America may end up too exhausted to stand up against Loki here and now, and have to acquiesce for the moment. Just as sometimes he doesn't have the stamina left to defeat Batroc in hand-to-hand combat. But this is where (2) becomes important: the narration here can still preserve character concept (eg it's not that Cap is a coward; rather, he's exhausted _because of_ his heroic efforts).

There are exceptions to (1) and (2) to be found in good RPGs - eg morale in Classic Traveller isn't something players can spend resources on (other than brining along a leader with Leader and/or Tactics skill), and the narration of the consequence tends to be fairly one-dimensional. I wouldn't envisage many contemporary RPGs using that sort of mechanic, though - I'm not saying it's bad (it happened in the last combat in my Traveller game, and the players weren't outraged or anything), but it tends to be something of a marker of the era when the rules were writeen.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 25, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> The only problem with this comes if players use this rule as a way of in effect avoiding or negating bad or negative things happening to their characters during the run of play, rather than playing through them.
> 
> I also like interchanging characters both as player and DM, and if you're bringing a retired character back in we'll update it and see if it's done anything significant in the meantime.




I think the DM needs to say "no" when stuff like that happens and good players don't fall into that kind of thing. 




> Brand new characters, however, always come in at a lower level than the party average.



I tend to keep levels the same, but it would depend a lot. New characters shouldn't be _better_ than existing ones, but I don't want them to be overshadowed.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2018)

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] - from what you're saying, at least from what I understand of what you're saying, it appears that so long as the game has existing mechanics for removing player agency, you're pretty ok with it.  You don't want it done on an ad hoc, fiat basis (either by the DM or another player) but, with games that have specific, existing mechanics, you're pretty happy.

So, I honestly have to ask, what's the beef with a warlord?  It's existing mechanics, same as Sanity, or Morale or anything else, that tells you what your character thinks.  Why is it such an issue with one specific class and not all mechanics?


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 26, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> One of the most important things that I do when I run a campaign, is confirm a players' action. Often there will be a situation where the player is about to take an action that could be considered dangerous to their character. And right at that moment, other players at the table point out the danger of the action. And I actually welcome this sort of player investment in another player's actions. At my table, players are allowed to debate what they want to do for as long as they like, and they are allowed to reconsider their actions, as long as the outcome of that action has not been revealed yet by me.
> 
> So in such cases where the action might be dangerous, I always ask: "Are you sure you want to go through with this action?". And don't get me wrong, I'm not giving away warnings here, or spoiling traps. I'm merely confirming that I understand the actions of their character correctly, and that they as players fully understand the situation as I've described it.
> 
> ...



Great and fantastic... Now lets see that with magical traps, or ones dealing with say myconid fungal spores, deciphering arcane runes, tracking griffons, treating disease caused by possessed worgs and the countless other things which are less obvious than tripwires a non-experienced IT guy can defeat.

Seems to me if a trap placed in a world with basically super powered  thieves can be "solved" by my tech writer dad of three, without realky much at all character skill mattering, it was a trap that was not serious to begin with.

Whats next? To close the arcane portal name the crew of the Serenity in alphabetic order?

Combat? Name the three words from The Day the Earth Stood Still and the ogre mage dies?

Its always seems some overly simplified obvious analog that gets used to support skipping or minimizing the character in resolution. 

Usually followed by the promise that it applies as well to arcane and medical checks and the scads of others.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 26, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Great and fantastic... Now lets see that with magical traps, or ones dealing with say myconid fungal spores, deciphering arcane runes, tracking griffons, treating disease caused by possessed worgs and the countless other things which are less obvious than tripwires a non-experienced IT guy can defeat.




I treat such traps in exactly the same way. For a magical trap, I may describe what the magical energy of the trap is doing, and what the players can deduce from that, based on their arcane knowledge (for which I sometimes ask them to roll). For example, one of my players recently encountered a magical trap on a chest, while he thought he was sure that it did not contain any magic (based on a detect magic he did earlier). But upon actually searching for traps, and beating the DC I set for it, I informed him that he could see minor sparks of magical energy underneath the lid of the chest.



5ekyu said:


> Seems to me if a trap placed in a world with basically super powered  thieves can be "solved" by my tech writer dad of three, without really much at all character skill mattering, it was a trap that was not serious to begin with.




Sometimes traps don't require a skill check. My players only roll when the outcome is uncertain, or when things go wrong. 



> Its always seems some overly simplified obvious analog that gets used to support skipping or minimizing the character in resolution.
> 
> Usually followed by the promise that it applies as well to arcane and medical checks and the scads of others.




It does.

But I have also had non-magic traps in my campaign that were not quite so straight forward. I don't let my players off the hook with a simple _"I disarm the trap"_. I want to know from them how they approach the situation. If the situation is as simple as cutting a wire, then no die rolls are needed. But if its not that simple, or their approach to the problem has a chance to fail, I let them roll. 

For example:



> The Rogue was scouting ahead of the party and noticed that one of the tunnels was suspiciously clean of dust, bones and skulls. He suspected the presence of a trapdoor, and so he checked for one. Yep, clearly a trapdoor of sorts. The floor seems to be able to move, thus explaining the lack of dust. Perhaps some sort of see-saw contraption, or a chute? Great... but now how do you go about disarming it?
> 
> Depending on the actions of the Rogue, a check may be required (if the outcome is uncertain). But if he is really careful, maybe no check is needed at all. The trap in question was a trapdoor that only triggered under the weight of two or more people, and would drop the unlucky victims into a spike pit below. But at best the Rogue can detect that there is some sort of tilting floor present, because the rest of the trap is carefully hidden.
> 
> Now, he could try to jam the mechanism so the floor doesn't tilt any more. But that would definitely require a check. Or he could weigh one end of the floor down with the equivalent of two people, which would simply succeed automatically (no check required). Regardless of his approach, I confirm that he understands the situation and wants to proceed with his possibly dangerous action. But he won't know if he's been successful, until he tries to walk across.




And here's an example with a magical trap:



> The party finds a little treasure chest, and the Rogue checks it for traps. I ask him how he checks the chest. The Rogue tells me he wants to carefully lift the lid of the chest just an inch, to see if there are any mechanisms that are ready to trigger (this requires a die roll for him to not accidentally trigger the trap). He makes his check, and I describe to him that he sees a charge of magical energy build up inside the chest the moment he lifts the lid but an inch, so he quickly closes it again, and the spell does not go off. The party then tries to identify the spell, and discovers it is a powerful evocation spell. This informs them that this could be some sort of disintegrate spell, and so they take no risks. Later on in the campaign, they deliberately aim the chest at a monster, and open the chest in the monster's direction. The trap triggers, and the spell strikes what ever is directly in front of the chest (no check needed).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 28, 2018)

I'm not sure that playing a hot-headed character in a game with mechanics that model that is loss of player agency (assuming you chose that trait). Actually, I think behavior mechanics may have little to do with it...
...maybe I need a refresher on the official definition?



Elfcrusher said:


> What I _do_ mind...very much...is, the DM (or even another player) telling me what my character thinks or feels.   "A wood elf wouldn't do that"



 I can't say I care for that attitude, myself, but if wood elves in the setting have a cultural taboo or an instinctual aversion or something, then taking that into account makes sense.



> "You would definitely not think of using fire on these creatures that keep healing"



 It would be more forthright to just say 'stop metagaming' or 'stop using player knowledge'



> "I'll use Persuade to convince your character that mine is right"



 In the eds of D&D that have that skill, that use is not kosher, IIRC.



> "You find Jeff's character so inspiring that you get your HP back."



 In the ed of D&D that originated that, the fluff could be altered ("Actually I find him so insufferable that I get hps back just to show him up"), and the mechanics of the effect gave the recipient the opportunities to expend a resource to recover hps, so if you felt it was out of character, you just wouldn't do so.
 Though, the 5e PDK's similar ability heals regardless (you could renounce the status of ally, or, since it requires seeing or hearing the PDK, close your eyes and go "nahnahnyah! can't hear you!").


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 29, 2018)

I've been thinking a lot about this topic because the game I'm writing has a mechanic for social combat -- including convincing people to do things they might not do otherwise. As folks have noted above, I find that when used against a PC I need to draw a distinction between "magical compulsion" and "your character should do this, even if you as a player don't want to." It doesn't matter if you can take a mechanical penalty to refuse; even that has a tendency to make some players frustrated.

Part of the secret is buy-in. Games like The Dying Earth or Skulduggery are based around the idea of convincing people to stuff they wouldn't want, and there's a huge amount of laughter that comes from that. You have to know how it works going in, though.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 29, 2018)

For third edition I came up with a homebrew system for drunk characters. I did this mostly because I thought the rules in the book were stupid (you take con damage if you fail a check, why would anyone then ever drink alcohol?).

So in my homebrew 3.5 rules, a failed fortitude save means the player rolls a D20 on the drunk effect table. This can then result in all manner of hilarious role playing effects, BUT it is up to the player to give his own spin on it. For example, there is one drunk effect that says _"You want to confess a very personal secret to someone"_ or _"You become very opinionated on politics"_, or _"You feel like everyone is your friend"_.

This homebrew rule does affect the behavior of the player's characters, but in a way that the agency is still with the players. It is an excuse for funny role playing situations.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, I honestly have to ask, what's the beef with a warlord?



I hadn't realised that this is really a _warlord_ thread. That kind-of explains it, in a slightly bizarre way!


----------



## pemerton (Mar 30, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> But your character's _conception of himself_ can still be that he is strong, and quick, and brave.



I was referring to the player's conception of his/her PC, not to the PC's self-conception.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 30, 2018)

Piratecat said:


> *Part of the secret is buy-in.* Games like The Dying Earth or Skulduggery are based around the idea of convincing people to stuff they wouldn't want, and there's a huge amount of laughter that comes from that. *You have to know how it works going in, though*.




I think these are the two most important takeaways from all this discussion.

If players come into a game knowing how it runs, they're going to know that sometimes they'll be on the receiving end.  But knowing how it runs also means sometimes you'll be on the dealing side.  As long as you're willing to role with the rolls then there really isn't a problem.

And frankly, most of the time when an NPC is trying to convince you to do something, what's really going on is the DM is trying to move the game forward.

I for one like to be a good little fishy and bite all the hooks.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 1, 2018)

shidaku said:


> And frankly, most of the time when an NPC is trying to convince you to do something, what's really going on is the DM is trying to move the game forward.
> 
> I for one like to be a good little fishy and bite all the hooks.



For games that have functional social conflict mechanics, this tends not to be the case. Just as in other sorts of conflict, the idea is to provoke a response from the players in the play of their PCs.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 1, 2018)

"And frankly, most of the time when an NPC is trying to convince you to do something, what's really going on is the DM is trying to move the game forward."

Really? Wow. 

One of the first things i tell my players in session zero is "Never think of the NPCs as me. They are people inside the world, not agents of my will. React accordingly. They will."

Heck, on more than a few occassions, when the PCs were rolling up an organization, the NPC leader sent foljs to hire them for a lucrative, heroic job, sometimes even with added local social pressure to get them out of their hair while they regrouped. 

Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didnt. 

Either way, the players had leads and options and choices and that "escort priests and supplies to macguffinville" plot was pitched as "in game offer" like every other.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 1, 2018)

Imaculata 
"I treat such traps in exactly the same way. "

Your examples say differently.

You give examples of clues leading to detection of both magical and non-magical traps. You show examples of using mechanical obvious real world mechanics common sense to disarm the mechanicals. Easily done since we have all some shared frame work for that.

Magical traps dive straight after sparky spot into maybe an arcane check needed for info, identify, detect type of magic, and even to not even disarming but sometime later setting it off.

Why wasnt there a clear obvious set of steps to disable that magic one?

Why so many checks, seeming spells cast etc?

Again, what about disease? Does my medicine ecpert guy need me to know cpr is bad for stab wounds? Even some politician doctors may be confused by that one.

Obviously, tables have different rules, but in my experience the more the gm empowers "auto-approach-success" the more valuable the skills that dont have obvious real world "approaches" become and the more "dump staty" areas where player is knowledgeable become.

The most egregious area of that in my ecperience is not traps but social skills where the same principle can let a socialy adept player give a good pitch, well thought out, avoid pitfalls and basically never need worry about the characters 8 cha and lack of persuasion. 

But, likley thats not a problem in your games.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 1, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "And frankly, most of the time when an NPC is trying to convince you to do something, what's really going on is the DM is trying to move the game forward."
> 
> Really? Wow.
> 
> ...




I'll preface this with a big *IME* When an NPC is trying to get you to do something, it's usually a quest, or a quest hook, or something that will lead you to the quests, or the quest hooks.  And when an NPC tries to get you to go on a quest, that's something the DM wrote up to tie into part ot the larger game world.  Your experience may differ.


----------



## Darth Solo (Apr 2, 2018)

I'd think if spells can affect you, social skills can. Just another kind of save. "Charm Person" and Persuasion are only separated by interpretive degrees. In the end, the result is the greater key.

If I say "rule 5 does not affect my PC, even if rule 6 is very similar with a different descriptor", where is the line that enables GM disruption?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The difference is that the effects of an explosion are about physics and physiology, and the effects of the social interaction are about thoughts.
> .



 Not to get too metaphysical, but an RPG is pretty much all thoughts.

The closest things to physics are rules, so if a rule says something about how big an explosion you can design your character to survive or how insightful or persuasive you can design him to be, then they're pretty much equally thoughts and equally faux-physics.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not to get too metaphysical, but an RPG is pretty much all thoughts.
> 
> The closest things to physics are rules, so if a rule says something about how big an explosion you can design your character to survive or how insightful or persuasive you can design him to be, then they're pretty much equally thoughts and equally faux-physics.




It's kinda funny when you think about it.  We completely accept game rules that are totally ludicrous in the name of playing the game - survivable balls of fire, explosions, falling damage, etc.  But, people absolutely balk at the idea of rules governing their reactions.

IOW, it's perfectly fine for my rules to kill, maim or otherwise incapacitate your character, but, tell you that you like/dislike something?  No, absolutely not.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 4, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I'll preface this with a big *IME* When an NPC is trying to get you to do something, it's usually a quest, or a quest hook, or something that will lead you to the quests, or the quest hooks.  And when an NPC tries to get you to go on a quest, that's something the DM wrote up to tie into part ot the larger game world.  Your experience may differ.



IMG i make a serious ppint to make sure my players know the NPCs are not me and when i,play i always give that GM the same. 

Starting to see the NPCs as the GM and what the NPCs want you to do as the GM wants is road i actively strive to close down day zero.

So, yeah, IME varies.

But to each their own.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 4, 2018)

Darth Solo said:


> I'd think if spells can affect you, social skills can. Just another kind of save. "Charm Person" and Persuasion are only separated by interpretive degrees. In the end, the result is the greater key.
> 
> If I say "rule 5 does not affect my PC, even if rule 6 is very similar with a different descriptor", where is the line that enables GM disruption?



I do not know what GM disruption means.. But it sounds painful so i avpid it.

As a gm, when i want to show persuasive characters or such working on the characters i present scenes which seem to make the pitch reasonable. 

Persuasion is not illusion, not control but influence... Its seeming to be the right key when a lock is there. 

Whether they agree, or not or go other ways is up to them.

Compulsions, illusions... Different things.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> It's kinda funny when you think about it.  We completely accept game rules that are totally ludicrous in the name of playing the game - survivable balls of fire, explosions, falling damage, etc.  But, people absolutely balk at the idea of rules governing their reactions.
> 
> IOW, it's perfectly fine for my rules to kill, maim or otherwise incapacitate your character, but, tell you that you like/dislike something?  No, absolutely not.



Thats because the thing the players really bring to the table are choices... Start taking that away, why do they need to be there? 

Telling them they are controlled... Tolerable.

Telling them you get to decide how their character thinks... Bye bye.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Thats because the thing the players really bring to the table are choices... Start taking that away, why do they need to be there?
> 
> Telling them they are controlled... Tolerable.
> 
> Telling them you get to decide how their character thinks... Bye bye.




But, that's the funny thing.  My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think.  And no one really bitches about that.

OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.

And we consider that good role playing?


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the funny thing.  My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think.  And no one really bitches about that.
> 
> OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.
> 
> And we consider that good role playing?



One of those is magic and we expect magic to break reality. The other is less tangible.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the funny thing.  My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think.  And no one really bitches about that.
> 
> OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.
> 
> And we consider that good role playing?




Are you sure about that?  My feeling is that your 1st level NPC Wizard just effectively committed suicide by PC, there is no way that my Players would let that stand,


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> One of those is magic and we expect magic to break reality. The other is less tangible.




But, even if less tangible, it's certainly something we can envision.  This highly charismatic person who is an expert in diplomacy (not the skill, just talking to people) is trying to convince you of something.  In a game, we're limited by the DM's ability to portray that.  So, we have to rely on the players to react in a plausible manner.

However, frequently, players will completely ignore the stats of the NPC and react in whatever way they want to.  Because, dammit, it's my PC and you can't tell me what to think.    Never minding that for entire rest of the game, we allow the mechanics to guide play.



Shasarak said:


> Are you sure about that?  My feeling is that your 1st level NPC Wizard just effectively committed suicide by PC, there is no way that my Players would let that stand,




Funny.  But, the point still remains.  The wizard can do that.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> the thing the players really bring to the table are choices... Start taking that away, why do they need to be there?



There are all sorts of limits on the declaration of actions in a RPG. For instance, if my PC is in a pit, then I can declare "I try and climb out" but I can't meaningfully declare "I try and walk forward". Social influence doesn't seem very unique in this respect.



5ekyu said:


> One of those is magic and we expect magic to break reality. The other is less tangible.



I live in a world in which magic doesn't exist, and yet people are influenced by others all the time. It's not that intangible.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the funny thing.  My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think.  And no one really bitches about that.
> 
> OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.



I've such an NPC in my current game.  Some of the players don't like him at all but the characters generally do, because I bring his high Cha into play by always framing my words so as to appeal to the PCs' best interests when trying to get them to do what he wants (usually, go off on some dangerous adventure) - he knows just what to say, and how to say it. (in other words, I as DM know what makes these people tick and put that knowledge to merciless use when RPing this guy)

And if he still can't convince them?  Well, so be it - I tried...

Lanefan


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 4, 2018)

People are convinced all the time to do things against their own interests. This can span the range of a salesman convincing you that you need the warranty all the way to a cult leader convincing you to drink the Kool-Aid.

So this certainly seems like something that should be possible in the game. But obvioulsy it’s a bit problematic for some. 

This is likely because resorting to mechanics is an overt invocation of game rules for a covert action by a character in the game. It’s a bit odd in that sense. Imagine the salesman said before his warranty pitch “I’m going to use my natural charisma and my position in the buyer/salesman dynamic to convince you to get the warranty. You ready?” 

No one minds when rules are evoked for overt actions like jumping over a wall or hitting an orc with a sword. But lacking a “Gullibility” score or some other mechanical representation I’ve never seen in a game, it’s not very easy to abdicate. This is why I said earlier to put the action in the player’s hands; don’t have the NPC make an Influence roll, have the PC make an Insight roll. Or do an opposed roll, I suppose. 

Ultimately though, if you want the PC to consider an action that an NPC is suggesting he take to be a viable action, then I think it’s best if the GM tries to not rely on mechanics to do so. Instead, use the situation to try and convince the PC. Make the points that the NPC would make, have a counter for the concerns the PC would raise.

In other words, make a convincing argument. That’s the same thing the NPC would be doing. 

Again, I get why some folks think that the rules should allow for this, but I just think it’s best to let the player decide. P

But for influencing through words? That’s tricker to translate to game mechanics. Especially since no mattwr what anyone may tell me, I will never get the warranty. It’s up to me. 

The reverse can be true, too. People can just as readily ignore the advice of someone acting in their best interests. Someone can be convincing as hell about eliminating bacon from my diet....but I don’t care what stats they use or how charming they are or how great of an analogy they can make, I’m still gonna eat bacon.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 7, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> lacking a “Gullibility” score or some other mechanical representation I’ve never seen in a game



The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.



hawkeyefan said:


> This is likely because resorting to mechanics is an overt invocation of game rules for a covert action by a character in the game. It’s a bit odd in that sense. Imagine the salesman said before his warranty pitch “I’m going to use my natural charisma and my position in the buyer/salesman dynamic to convince you to get the warranty. You ready?”



I'm not sure it's really _covert_ to try and persuade someone.

I mean, a to hit roll represents the other fighter using his/her natural deftness to wrongfoot and feint the PC. If the opponent said "I'm about to feint you" would that make sense? Probably not (at least not all the time).



hawkeyefan said:


> if you want the PC to consider an action that an NPC is suggesting he take to be a viable action, then I think it’s best if the GM tries to not rely on mechanics to do so. Instead, use the situation to try and convince the PC. Make the points that the NPC would make, have a counter for the concerns the PC would raise.



Personally, I want the decision situation for _me_, as a player, to match or correlate to the decision situation for my PC. Trying to persuade my PC by reasons that don't speak to _me_ is tricky - it can require me to step ouside my inhabitation of the PC and reason it through like a 3rd person ("acting" rather than "being").

Mechanical changes can be one way to generate reasons that plug this gap.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.



 In 5e D&D, in a flurry of brilliant innovation & revolutionary outside the box thinking, it was changed from 3e's Sense Motive to Passive Insight.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.



 In 5e D&D, in a flurry of brilliant innovative outside the box thinking, it was changed from 3e's Sense Motive to the revolutionary new Passive Insight.  (Which they totally stole from Monty Cook in his brief association with the Next playtest).


----------



## darkbard (Apr 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In 5e D&D, in a flurry of brilliant innovative outside the box thinking, it was changed from 3e's Sense Motive to the revolutionary new Passive Insight.  (Which they totally stole from Monty Cook in his brief association with the Next playtest).




Actually, Tony, that innovation, the passive Insight score (and, more prominently, passive Perception score), began in 4E.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 7, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the funny thing.  My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think.  And no one really bitches about that.
> 
> OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.
> 
> And we consider that good role playing?




Oh, hey...I've been summoned! 

Assuming you genuinely are interested in this apparent paradox, and not merely soapboxing, here's my view...

When the 'Charm Person' gets cast (and my character fails his/her saving throw) my character has effectively been hijacked for the duration of the spell.  Maybe I still get to control the character (that varies by table) but it's no longer "my" character.  And that's ok, for the same reason that it's ok when I don't get to control my character when he drops to zero HP: there is a rule for what happens in that situation.

But the "Persuasion" skill is not a Charm Person spell.  When you roll a modified 35 on your Persuasion skill it doesn't mean you have persuaded anybody, it means you were persuasive.  See the difference?  Your skill success says something about you not about me.  My reaction to your silver tongue, on the other hand, is entirely up to me.

Now, as to the question about roleplaying...

When my character drops to zero HP and so I stop taking actions, am I roleplaying, or simply playing by the rules?

Similarly, when I fail my saving throw vs. Charm and follow the instructions of the caster, am I roleplaying or simply playing by the rules?

In both cases, I would argue that's not roleplaying.  Or at least, not very interesting roleplaying.

So if your high Cha NPC rolls a 20 on Persuasion and anything other than being persuaded is frowned upon at the table, is it roleplaying if I agree to be persuaded?  I thinketh not.

I will simultaneously agree that it is also un-good roleplaying to completely ignore the Persuade success as a matter of policy, or because in this case I don't like the implications.  But the Persuade success is really just an environmental cue to guide my roleplaying, just as much as the description of a delicious meal would be. (How ridiculous would it be if a DM said, "The cooking is delicious and you all find it very enjoyable.  Please roleplay that.")  I am free to interpret those cues however I want, hopefully in a way that adds depth to the character concept I have been exploring and expanding upon.

Then, if my interpretations consistently clash with your sense of roleplaying aesthetics, we will figure that out and maybe stop playing at the same table.

Uh-oh, duration on that summoning spell is expiring....

POOF!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.




Poor choice of words on my part. “Rarely seen” probably would have made more sense. I know that some games have rules for this, or an option for it to be added.




pemerton said:


> I'm not sure it's really _covert_ to try and persuade someone.
> 
> I mean, a to hit roll represents the other fighter using his/her natural deftness to wrongfoot and feint the PC. If the opponent said "I'm about to feint you" would that make sense? Probably not (at least not all the time).




Covert is not a perfect word for it, no. Sometimes a person could be perfectly straightforward about trying to influence another’s decision making. But not always. Attempts to trick or decieve are, I think, what people tend to take issue with in this regard. I don’t think most folks would voice the complaint “that NPC offered sound advice and my PC took it to heart”.

The feint analogy doesn’t really work for me because even though it’s a deception of sorts, the end result is still someone trying to stick something sharp into the you. 



pemerton said:


> Personally, I want the decision situation for _me_, as a player, to match or correlate to the decision situation for my PC. Trying to persuade my PC by reasons that don't speak to _me_ is tricky - it can require me to step ouside my inhabitation of the PC and reason it through like a 3rd person ("acting" rather than "being").
> 
> Mechanical changes can be one way to generate reasons that plug this gap.




See I look at this almost exactly the opposite. If I want my decision making as a player to align with my character’s as much as possible, then mechanics are an intrusion. I’m supposed to advocate for my character. So if the merchant is telling my character that the duke is secretly evil and aligned with the cult that’s been plaguing the area, then I want the GM to present the merchant’s argument in a way that convinces me. 

If any mechanics are to enter into it, I’d prefer it be a roll on my part, using Insight or Sense Motive or whatever relevant skill is called for to try and determine if the merchant has an ulterior motive or is lying.

Doing it in the opposite way...where the GM rolls for the merchant to Bluff/Influence/Persuade my character just seems off. It involves some judgment to decide exactly the impact of the roll; does my PC wholeheartedly believe him? Will the PC march off to confront the duke? Or doEsthe PC simply take the merchant’s information into consideration?

Just seems very heavy handed to me.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> There are all sorts of limits on the declaration of actions in a RPG. For instance, if my PC is in a pit, then I can declare "I try and climb out" but I can't meaningfully declare "I try and walk forward". Social influence doesn't seem very unique in this respect.
> 
> I live in a world in which magic doesn't exist, and yet people are influenced by others all the time. It's not that intangible.



You also live in a world where odd fortuitous events kill peopke every day, where someone can slip walking their dog and die, where an unexpected unforseeable bloid clot can just render someone comatose, etc etc etc etc.

Yet, pretty sure a GM invoking those and taking characters out of pc control would find a few issues.

If a gm with all the tools at his disposal cannot get a charismatic character a good pitch, they can absolutely use some form of coercive mechanic... But it would be wise at session zero to explain to the players the mechanics, the circumstances and the frequencies with which they plan to invoke their takeover powers.

That way, folks can know and buy in or walk out.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 8, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> If a gm with all the tools at his disposal cannot get a charismatic character a good pitch, they can absolutely use some form of coercive mechanic... But it would be wise at session zero to explain to the players the mechanics, the circumstances and the frequencies with which they plan to invoke their takeover powers.
> 
> That way, folks can know and buy in or walk out.



At the start of a campaign I've no way of knowing how much I'll be using (or needing to use) any such mechanics 5 years down the road, if at all.

But I do make it very clear up front that bad things of all sorts can and will happen to PCs from time to time, so might as well get used to it.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 8, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> At the start of a campaign I've no way of knowing how much I'll be using (or needing to use) any such mechanics 5 years down the road, if at all.
> 
> But I do make it very clear up front that bad things of all sorts can and will happen to PCs from time to time, so might as well get used to it.



So you setup in session zero agreement for you to just say "boo you are dead" and they gotta go along with it... Nice.

Mine go differently than that. 

The words "hero" and "star" and "fun"  get more focus in those discussions  than their getting used to bad things in the game they wont like.

I also do manage to make clear the circumstances and causes for when character control can be lost - compulsory effects. 

But each table is different.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Poor choice of words on my part. “Rarely seen” probably would have made more sense. I know that some games have rules for this, or an option for it to be added.



Sorry, I wasn't meaning to criticse your choice of words. I just thought you might be interested to know of some examples.

I don't have that great a grasp of how it works in Dying Earth, but I _think_ it's similar to HeroQuest revised (both are Robin Laws designs): in circumstances where the flaw would apply, the GM can call for a check against the rating of the flaw, and if the check fails then the normal consequences for failure ensue (eg in HeroQuest this might be a penalty to subsequent uses of the ability that was tested ).

Burning Wheel, as well as Will, does have a Steel rating, and the GM can call for Steel checks in appropriate circumstances (eg seeing a grisly murder, trying to assassinate someone, being caught in an ambush, seeing a ghost or demon, etc). If the check fails, the character hesitates.



hawkeyefan said:


> The feint analogy doesn’t really work for me because even though it’s a deception of sorts, the end result is still someone trying to stick something sharp into the you.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



At least some of the concern here seems to be about poor mechanics.

And also about the running together of mental states and actions.

To mention the latter first: when the sales clerk persuades you to take out the extended warranty, of course you know that you _may _be being duped. But maybe you're not! You take it out "just in case".

In Burning Wheel's duel of wits, or in DitV where a struggle takes place using words and neither party escalates (to fists or guns), then losing the conflict doesn't have to mean that you're persuaded. In Dow it means that you've agreed, and you're (at least) resigned to keeping your promise. In DitV, it might mean that you reluctantly shrug your shoulders and say "OK, have it your way." You don't think they're right - you're just not prepared to keep pressing the point.

In DitV, you can see your will to dispute the point weakening, as your number of available dice to commit to the conflict reduces (DitV conflict resolution is by putting forward dice from one's pool, turn by turn, to try and match the opponent). You as a palyer wonder "Can I keep going with this? Am I going to escalate [eg draw a gun, which allows new dice in the pool]? Or let this one go?" Which is what your PC is thinking, too.

Personally, I find the idea that my character has an unlimited degree of resolve or social stamina as unrealistic as if s/he could be peppered with arrows yet unfazed. (A superhero game might be different - but then Loki probably wears away resolve at a superheroic rate!)


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> You also live in a world where odd fortuitous events kill peopke every day, where someone can slip walking their dog and die, where an unexpected unforseeable bloid clot can just render someone comatose, etc etc etc etc.
> 
> Yet, pretty sure a GM invoking those and taking characters out of pc control would find a few issues.



There's no reason that social mechanics have to be arbitrary, is there?

I mean, if the rules of the game dicatate - for whatever reason - that a PC dies (say from poison), then the GM is absolutely entitled to narrate that as some sort of freakish event, isn't s/he (eg the poison led to a fatal blood clot)?



5ekyu said:


> it would be wise at session zero to explain to the players the mechanics, the circumstances and the frequencies with which they plan to invoke their takeover powers.



I don't know what sort of mechanics you have in mind? I'm thinking of fairly well-known RPGs with robust mechanics for resolving social mechanics - most of the time these are instances or specialised applications of general resolution frameworks. (I'm thinking Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, probabluy Fate as well.)

"Takeover powers" would a poor description of social resolution in any of those games. I don't know if that's how people run 3E/PF, but I though everyone knew that 3E/PF Diplomacy rules are worthless.


----------



## Crusadius (Apr 8, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, hey...I've been summoned!
> 
> Assuming you genuinely are interested in this apparent paradox, and not merely soapboxing, here's my view...
> 
> ...




I like your explanation about the difference between Charm Person and Persuasion.

One problem I see with games such as D&D is that they have a very detailed system for combat, and a very simple system for social interactions. And this causes some of the problems that this thread is discussing.

Some people offer the solution of not using the dice but roleplaying the social interaction but I don't like this because I believe that every thing on the character sheet is important and should have the same impact on the game as other things of the same category (e.g. Strength in combat, and Charisma in social situations).

I personally like systems that try and deal with with combat and social interaction with similar systems, or as the example above, magical influence and non-magical influence. For example I like how Weapons of the Gods treats such things as Conditions that either give bonuses or penalties to the character.

For given the example: a Charm Person could give a penalty on any action to the character that does not help the caster, whereas the Persuasion skill could give a bonus to the character(s) when they act as being persuaded, doing what the one who persuaded them wants.

Thus Player Agency is maintained and the Players choose how their characters act.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 8, 2018)

Crusadius said:


> I personally like systems that try and deal with with combat and social interaction with similar systems, or as the example above, magical influence and non-magical influence.




I agree with the former, not necessarily the latter.  I think skills are inherently different from spells and abilities.  As I said previously, your skill determines _how well_ you accomplish something, not _what_ you accomplish.  That is the general rule, and specifics can override it: for example if you have an ability that says, "Once per short rest you can make a Persuasion check, if you are successful....etc."  In that case the result is specified, and it's a "rule" in the sense of combat rules.

So the difference between social interaction and combat is not the nature of the rules.  It's just that there are a lot more rules for combat.  After all, you can cast Charm Person in a social encounter.

But, yes, I'd love to see the mechanics of exploration and social interaction be richer.

As a side note, in no case should normal use of a skill produce a result as powerful as that of a cantrip, let alone a 1st level spell.  Which is one reason I don't allow Intimidation to work like Fear, Persuasion to work like Charm, or Insight to work like Detect Truth.



> For given the example: a Charm Person could give a penalty on any action to the character that does not help the caster, whereas the Persuasion skill could give a bonus to the character(s) when they act as being persuaded, doing what the one who persuaded them wants.




I like codified mechanics, but (again) I'd be wary of giving Persuasion that much power.  

However, I do think the mechanic for an NPC using Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception on PCs is already in the rules, and it works somewhat similar to what you're suggesting: the DM can grant Inspiration when the player plays along with the result, especially when doing so is counter to their own interests.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 8, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So you setup in session zero agreement for you to just say "boo you are dead" and they gotta go along with it... Nice.



Somewhat more extremist than I had in mind...

That said, particularly at low levels death is a frequent companion; and level loss, item or wealth loss, charm-domination effects, and long-term non-death "outages" such as being captured and hauled away - these are all things that can and almost certainly will happen from time to time throughout a campaign.  I don't even try to sugar-coat that adventuring is an extremely high-risk-high-reward thing to do.



> Mine go differently than that.
> 
> The words "hero" and "star" and "fun"  get more focus in those discussions  than their getting used to bad things in the game they wont like.



It's still fun.

It was one of my players who quite some time ago said something in full seriousness that we've all kind of lived by ever since: "Dungeons without mortality are dungeons without life."

But if you want to be a hero, or a star, or anything special at all it's (almost certainly*) not going to be handed to you.  It'll take perseverance, patience, and some luck.

* - the beneficial effects of Decks of Many Things et al notwithstanding; good things can happen to PCs as well.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> /snip
> 
> (How ridiculous would it be if a DM said, "The cooking is delicious and you all find it very enjoyable.  Please roleplay that.")  I am free to interpret those cues however I want, hopefully in a way that adds depth to the character concept I have been exploring and expanding upon.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't find that ridiculous at all to be honest.  There are all sorts of games out there that allow for exactly that.  Why shouldn't the DM be able to do that?  

I for one see absolutely no problem with skill checks being able to replicate magical effects and find the notion that a skill check, no matter how skilled, cannot even equal (let alone be better than) a cantrip or 1st level spell to be pretty much a non-starter.  

Played casters and caddies before.  Don't like it very much.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2018)

I wonder if this isn't a generational thing.  AD&D allowed for all sorts of effects once you got a stat above 18.  High Con granted you full on regeneration.  High Charisma allowed you to Awe people based on their level/HD.  High Wis flat out granted spell immunities.  So on and so forth.  

So, no, I don't have a problem with non-magical effects actually having an effect on PC's.  They should, IMO.


----------



## Crusadius (Apr 9, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I like codified mechanics, but (again) I'd be wary of giving Persuasion that much power.




I'd just note that the bonus or penalties awarded can be very different. So a Persuaded person might have +1 to +5 to related actions, whereas Charm Person could be -10 to everything including AC (or how about minus X Hit Points per round due to the mental anguish fighting against the spell).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I wonder if this isn't a generational thing.  AD&D allowed for all sorts of effects once you got a stat above 18.  High Con granted you full on regeneration.  High Charisma allowed you to Awe people based on their level/HD.  High Wis flat out granted spell immunities.  So on and so forth.




I started with AD&D in 1981 (well, one game with D&D before going to AD&D) but then again I'm really unbelievably immature so maybe I count as "one of those durned kids".  So, sure, call it a generational thing.

My sense of what kinds of rules and priorities and roleplaying make for good gaming have also evolved a lot since then.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I started with AD&D in 1981 (well, one game with D&D before going to AD&D) but then again I'm really unbelievably immature so maybe I count as "one of those durned kids".  So, sure, call it a generational thing.




Ok, then what's the equivalent bonus for all the other skills.  Because if you give one skill a concrete mechanical bonus like that (looking at you, Perception) then it becomes objectively better than all the skills that don't have such bonuses.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 9, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Somewhat more extremist than I had in mind...
> 
> That said, particularly at low levels death is a frequent companion; and level loss, item or wealth loss, charm-domination effects, and long-term non-death "outages" such as being captured and hauled away - these are all things that can and almost certainly will happen from time to time throughout a campaign.  I don't even try to sugar-coat that adventuring is an extremely high-risk-high-reward thing to do.
> 
> ...



I find it very enjoyable for dm and players when you dont **need** death to breath life into adventure. 

I find it fantastic when they get so invested in thecworld and its inhabitants and events and have goals the breathe life into it beyond "my survival." 

Been thru the ptsd-pc games where " bad things of all sorts can and will happen to PCs from time to time, so might as well get used to it." where every chair and table might be cursed or trapoed if you did not DM-proof it with a litany of checks - for breakfast.

And did we remember to say we looked up?

Of course, wont matter cuz of the "and will" part.

Each group and gm have different preferences and dufferent **needs** and i can definitely say we dont need mortality to breathe life in our gaming.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Sorry, I wasn't meaning to criticse your choice of words. I just thought you might be interested to know of some examples.




No need to apologize....it was not the best choice of word. And I knew there are systems that allowed for this, but not really which ones, so your examples were useful. 




pemerton said:


> I don't have that great a grasp of how it works in Dying Earth, but I _think_ it's similar to HeroQuest revised (both are Robin Laws designs): in circumstances where the flaw would apply, the GM can call for a check against the rating of the flaw, and if the check fails then the normal consequences for failure ensue (eg in HeroQuest this might be a penalty to subsequent uses of the ability that was tested ).
> 
> Burning Wheel, as well as Will, does have a Steel rating, and the GM can call for Steel checks in appropriate circumstances (eg seeing a grisly murder, trying to assassinate someone, being caught in an ambush, seeing a ghost or demon, etc). If the check fails, the character hesitates.




Okay, but with Steel, it sounds more like a fear check, for which many games have some kind of mechanic, and which usually involves some far out elements I wouldn’t attribute to something a person can achieve with a skill (dragon fear, horror checks, and the like).

This is something different, I think, no? 



pemerton said:


> At least some of the concern here seems to be about poor mechanics.
> 
> And also about the running together of mental states and actions.
> 
> ...




I think that if the game in question has mechanics designed around this, that’s fine. They may be great or lousy, as any game element may be. It varies from game to game, I suppose.

But when such mechanics are absent, or not clearly defined, that’s where I’d lean toward not allowing skills to be so influential. For me, having the PC use his skill against te NPC rather than the other way around is the easiest way to avoid any issue.



pemerton said:


> Personally, I find the idea that my character has an unlimited degree of resolve or social stamina as unrealistic as if s/he could be peppered with arrows yet unfazed. (A superhero game might be different - but then Loki probably wears away resolve at a superheroic rate!)




Resolve, sure...I think a game mechanic to replicate things far beyond the normal human experience influencing the state of mind of the PC is just fine.

But the skill of an NPC dictating the behavior of a PC just seems undesirable to me. There are examples we coukd come uo with that I would be more okay with, but generally it’s something I’d try to avoid. And I don’t think that avoiding it means that PCs are immune to fear or influence or the like.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 9, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I wonder if this isn't a generational thing.  AD&D allowed for all sorts of effects once you got a stat above 18.  High Con granted you full on regeneration.  High Charisma allowed you to Awe people based on their level/HD.  High Wis flat out granted spell immunities.  So on and so forth.
> 
> So, no, I don't have a problem with non-magical effects actually having an effect on PC's.  They should, IMO.




Almost the only way to achieve stats that high was through magic. So yeah, the idea that they would bestow superhuman ability upon a character seems in line with that. 

If someone is supernaturally charming, that’s beyond the norm, and seems to have more in common with a spell.

I mean, the implications can be pretty severe. Let’s say I’m playing Godlike (a supers in WWII RPG) and my character has been sent into Berlin under cover by Churchill on a mission to kill Hitler....but then he hears one of Hitler’s speeches and decides to switch sides because Hitler made a really high speech roll.....

Tables would be flipped.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Almost the only way to achieve stats that high was through magic. So yeah, the idea that they would bestow superhuman ability upon a character seems in line with that.
> 
> If someone is supernaturally charming, that’s beyond the norm, and seems to have more in common with a spell.
> 
> ...




Actually, not really.  Some races could start with 19's in various stats.  So, it wasn't out of the realms of possibility.  But, sure, you're right, it would mostly take magic to get that high.  

But, then again, does that mean that really high stats are effectively magical, even if they weren't attained magically?  So, any really high skill score should be effectively magical as well, no?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, then again, does that mean that really high stats are effectively magical, even if they weren't attained magically?  So, any really high skill score should be effectively magical as well, no?




Which means Warlords could never have high skill rolls because _everything they do is non-magical_.

Zing!

EDIT: Deleted a more serious response to the above, because I don't really think previous editions are relevant so don't want to argue about it.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 9, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Actually, not really.  Some races could start with 19's in various stats.  So, it wasn't out of the realms of possibility.  But, sure, you're right, it would mostly take magic to get that high.




In 1E I think it was only possible through magic, but the rules were a bit all over the place, and my recollection of them is fuzzy. But I don’t think that the ability scores above 18 really showed up until 2E, which is where the regeneration and other abilities for high scores were introduced. But even then, regeneration began at Con 20, and a dwarf got a +1 racial adjustment, for a max of 19. I think the only race to have a shot at one of those abilities at character generation was a gnome with a 19 Int, which meant he was immune to 1st level illusions.  

But again, going off memory which is hazy, which is why I didn’t want to fully commit to magic being the only way, just that it was nearly always so.



Hussar said:


> But, then again, does that mean that really high stats are effectively magical, even if they weren't attained magically?  So, any really high skill score should be effectively magical as well, no?




Well, we’re comparing across editions, so that must be taken into account. I think that there must be a point somewhere when an ability has to be viewed as superhuman or supernatural. Where that line is drawn is likely different in each edition.

But yes, I’d agree with you that a really high score, beyond what is considered normal or natural, would be magical. Think Thulsa Doom from the original Conan movie. His ability to influence people is not an example of supreme skill, but rather it’s a supernatural ability.


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 9, 2018)

One solution I haven't seen yet is using something similar to _The Shadow of Yesterday_'s Keys where you get XP for roleplaying certain personality traits, flaws, etc.

5e doesn't directly link XP to roleplaying, but it does have Inspiration, which is something I think DMs (at least on ENWorld) tend to underutilize. Just as the DM can award Inspiration for roleplaying an ideal, bond or flaw, why not award Inspiration when a player allows their character to experience interesting complications as a result of a die roll (or however you want to word this). You don't even have to make a hard-and-fast rule with it. Go ahead and give Inspiration when a player plays along instead of digs their heels in, and tell them why they got the Inspiration so that other players can get the hint. 

At least, that's how I'd deal with it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2018)

I really wish D&D would distinguish magical from legendary.  In 5e, if you achieve a 30 on a skill check, you've basically done something legendary.  That's as high as the DC's go and you've basically just stolen fire from the gods level kind of thing.  It's not magic in the sense that you haven't cast a spell or accessed the Weave or anything like that, but, it is the stuff of legends.

So, no, I don't really have an issue with skill checks impacting PC's.  If D&D was a movie, the dice (and the rules) provide the direction.  The players provide the script.  As the DM, I provide everything else.  So, if the rules/dice say that X is true, then it should be something that the players have to account for as they provide the script.  If the cook scores (somehow) a 30 on his cooking skill, then this is mana from heaven.  It truly is the best food you have ever eaten.

When the player then turns around and says, "Nope, I hate it.  I don't like this food" I see that as breaking immersion at the table.  It's, for lack of better words, meta-gaming.  They've ignored what the game says in order to impose their own version of what's going on in the game and I would prefer it if players didn't do that.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 9, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t think that the ability scores above 18 really showed up until 2E, which is where the regeneration and other abilities for high scores were introduced.



Actually, they're from the 1st ed AD&D DDG. I don't know whether that has any substantive significance.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 9, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> If someone is supernaturally charming, that’s beyond the norm, and seems to have more in common with a spell.
> 
> I mean, the implications can be pretty severe. Let’s say I’m playing Godlike (a supers in WWII RPG) and my character has been sent into Berlin under cover by Churchill on a mission to kill Hitler....but then he hears one of Hitler’s speeches and decides to switch sides because Hitler made a really high speech roll.....
> 
> Tables would be flipped.



Again, I think what you're identifying here is a bad mechanic. There's no actual game I know of that involves social mechanics that works as you describe. Burning Wheel comes closest, but its Persuasion skill pertains to requests or proposals, not full-scale conversion, and the obstacle penalty in these circumstances would be +2 (so Hitler might be rolling 7 or 8 dice hoping to get 4+ on 6 of them, if the spy has Will 4 - which would be at the lower end for a top-notch spy).

Furthermore, in BW the player is always free to call for a Duel of Wits if s/he thinks it's a big deal. So instead of just being persuaded on a single check, s/he can start debating the point with Hitler and have the thing unfold as a debate or argument between them. If Hitler wins that DoW, then that is the outcome of a sustained piece of resolution in which the player matched his/her PC against Hitler!

The basic orientation of BW is _fight for what you believe_, which brings with it the possibility of finding out that, on this occasion at least, you didn't quite have what it takes.



hawkeyefan said:


> with Steel, it sounds more like a fear check, for which many games have some kind of mechanic, and which usually involves some far out elements I wouldn’t attribute to something a person can achieve with a skill (dragon fear, horror checks, and the like).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In Burning Wheel, the Intimidate skill can be used to force a Steel check. Various actions in a Duel of Wits can also have this effect.

In Cortex+ Heroic, a character can make a check to inflict a fear-related complication, or emotional stress, on another character. PCs and NPCs are completely symmetrical in this respect. The same reolution system is used to determine wither Wolverine scares someone with his claws, whether a telepath scares someone by forcing them to recall a frightening memory, or whether a dragon scares someone with its aura of fear.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think that if the game in question has mechanics designed around this, that’s fine. They may be great or lousy, as any game element may be. It varies from game to game, I suppose.
> 
> But when such mechanics are absent, or not clearly defined, that’s where I’d lean toward not allowing skills to be so influential.



A lot of your approach to this discussion seems to be adopting a 5e take on this - for instance, your conception of what skills are and what they're for. As best I understand it, 5e has fairly unclear rules for determining the consequences of skill checks whether made by players for PCs or by the GM for NPCs.

As is probably clear, I'm not coming from a particularly 5e point of view. When I think of D&D skills my paradigm is 4e, and there is no inherent difference between skills and other capabilities in 4e. (Though 4e does not, in general, have robust NPC-to-PC influence mechanics, because it's main mechanic for handling the outcomes of skill checks - namely, the skill challenge - is entirely a player-side thing.)

That said, nothing about 4e would stop the GM having a creature make an Intimidation check to inflict a round of dazed on a PC, or perhaps 1 square of forced movement back. This is part of the broader "p 42" system for determining checks and consequences of checks in 4e, as amplified by a mix of common sense and the late wrecan's article on how to adjudicate non-damage consequences.



Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, then what's the equivalent bonus for all the other skills.  Because if you give one skill a concrete mechanical bonus like that (looking at you, Perception) then it becomes objectively better than all the skills that don't have such bonuses.



Don't all elements of character build give the player of the character some way or other of overcoming obstacles or changing the fiction in some desired fashion?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

Hussar said:


> When the player then turns around and says, "Nope, I hate it.  I don't like this food" I see that as breaking immersion at the table.  It's, for lack of better words, meta-gaming.  They've ignored what the game says in order to impose their own version of what's going on in the game and I would prefer it if players didn't do that.




I think we just have playstyle differences.  I am perhaps more interested in letting the players contribute to the setting, not limited to what their character does.  I don't see it as "imposing" their own version of what's going on, I see them as also contributing.

Now, the example in this case doesn't seem to contribute as much as detracts, or at least it contradicts somebody else's contribution, which isn't cool.  And if the person is just being contrarian/difficult then I won't play with them very long.  But the player may have a _really good reason_ for doing something as surprising as this.  I'd prefer to start from the assumption that they are going to contribute constructively, rather than have blanket rules to prevent them from doing so in the first place.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Don't all elements of character build give the player of the character some way or other of overcoming obstacles or changing the fiction in some desired fashion?




Yes.  Maybe I didn't explain my point well.  If one skill (say Arcana) is effectively "when the situation arises, your DM may allow you to add your proficiency bonus to certain skill checks" and another (say Persuasion) is "same as above, and success results in an ongoing penalty equal to your skill modifier to those who you Persuade", then it seems to me that one of those skills is just a better/stronger skill.  

So if you're going to give one of those skills a specific mechanic for what success means, you have to give it to all of them.

So what's the comparative benefit for Arcana?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 9, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yes.  Maybe I didn't explain my point well.  If one skill (say Arcana) is effectively "when the situation arises, your DM may allow you to add your proficiency bonus to certain skill checks" and another (say Persuasion) is "same as above, and success results in an ongoing penalty equal to your skill modifier to those who you Persuade", then it seems to me that one of those skills is just a better/stronger skill.
> 
> So if you're going to give one of those skills a specific mechanic for what success means, you have to give it to all of them.
> 
> So what's the comparative benefit for Arcana?



In the context of 5e I don't really know how to answer this question. I don't think the 5e ability check/skill system, in it's basic form, is robust enough to support a strong system for social interaction, or other clear contributions to resolving conflicts; and my 5e design-fu is not strong enough to just come up with a robust variant. (The system presents some exceptions eg using Athletics in some hand-to-hand conflicts. But those don't provide an obvious model for generalising to other abilities/skills.)

In 4e, it's easy to envisage using Arcana to impose a penalty on a character. My own play experience is with Religion in that respect rather than Arcana (eg speaking a prayer to the Raven Queen to impose a penalty on an undead opponent) but I don't think Arcana would be any different (eg if the opponent was an elemental).

Am I talking about the right sort of thing to address your question?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In the context of 5e I don't really know how to answer this question. I don't think the 5e ability check/skill system, in it's basic form, is robust enough to support a strong system for social interaction, or other clear contributions to resolving conflicts; and my 5e design-fu is not strong enough to just come up with a robust variant. (The system presents some exceptions eg using Athletics in some hand-to-hand conflicts. But those don't provide an obvious model for generalising to other abilities/skills.)
> 
> In 4e, it's easy to envisage using Arcana to impose a penalty on a character. My own play experience is with Religion in that respect rather than Arcana (eg speaking a prayer to the Raven Queen to impose a penalty on an undead opponent) but I don't think Arcana would be any different (eg if the opponent was an elemental).
> 
> Am I talking about the right sort of thing to address your question?




Kinda.  I'm not really looking for a specific answer to the Arcana question.  I'm using it illustratively to show that if you're going to give a specific mechanical benefit to some skills, you really need to give them to all the skills.

Maybe some people would like that.  Sounds clunky to me.  You've suddenly changed skills into a something used to determine general success (that is, Intransitive) into something that has an explicit effect on others (Transitive).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 9, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I really wish D&D would distinguish magical from legendary.  In 5e, if you achieve a 30 on a skill check, you've basically done something legendary.  That's as high as the DC's go and you've basically just stolen fire from the gods level kind of thing.  It's not magic in the sense that you haven't cast a spell or accessed the Weave or anything like that, but, it is the stuff of legends.
> 
> So, no, I don't really have an issue with skill checks impacting PC's.  If D&D was a movie, the dice (and the rules) provide the direction.  The players provide the script.  As the DM, I provide everything else.  So, if the rules/dice say that X is true, then it should be something that the players have to account for as they provide the script.  If the cook scores (somehow) a 30 on his cooking skill, then this is mana from heaven.  It truly is the best food you have ever eaten.
> 
> When the player then turns around and says, "Nope, I hate it.  I don't like this food" I see that as breaking immersion at the table.  It's, for lack of better words, meta-gaming.  They've ignored what the game says in order to impose their own version of what's going on in the game and I would prefer it if players didn't do that.




It depends though. Something like the “best food ever” is subjective. It cannot be dictated across the board. Plus, maybe it was an asparagus dish...in which case the ghost of Julia Child could fly down from Mount Celestia on a unicorn to deliver it to me and I’d still gag. I loathe asparagus. 

But the scenario you’ve described can be annoying, I agree. If there was ever an instance where the quality of food mattered that much, and the player just wanted to be difficult, I’d be annoyed. But I have a hard time imagining such a scenario. 

Obviously there might be other skills where the usage would be more relevant to the unfolding story, but I find such situations are better served by simple narrative description. I’ll describe the NPCs speech as impassioned and persuasive, and present its content to support that. Then, the player can decide how his PC reacts.

I mean, we’ve all of us heard people make incredibly convincing arguments, even ones we can’t refute, and then still disagreed with them. The PCs’ reactions are theirs to choose.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, we’ve all of us heard people make incredibly convincing arguments, even ones we can’t refute, and then still disagreed with them.




In other words, when faced with a really persuasive NPC, it would be excellent roleplaying to:

1) Intentionally misconstrue their arguments so as to mock the implications
2) Pick out a small factual or grammatical error and use that to undermine the speaker's credibility
3) Make a reference to D&D back in '77, ostensibly because it somehow fits the topic, but really to establish some kind of seniority to lend weight to our own weak arguments.
4) Accuse the NPC of metagaming.
5) Ridicule their logic, comprehension, and clarity, then act all butt-hurt when they reciprocate and accuse us of resorting to personal attacks.
5) Block them.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 9, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> You've suddenly changed skills into a something used to determine general success (that is, Intransitive) into something that has an explicit effect on others (Transitive).



I don't really follow this. How can success in an attempt to persuade someone (using CHA/Persuasion) or to hide from someone (using DEX/Stealth) or to erase someone's sigil (using INT/Arcana) or to beat someone in a rase (using STR/Athletics) be divorced from the effect it has on someone?

I guess I don't really get the idea of "general success" in contexts - of which there are many - where the goal of the action is to defeat or affect someone else.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't really follow this. How can success in an attempt to persuade someone (using CHA/Persuasion) or to hide from someone (using DEX/Stealth) or to erase someone's sigil (using INT/Arcana) or to beat someone in a rase (using STR/Athletics) be divorced from the effect it has on someone?
> 
> I guess I don't really get the idea of "general success" in contexts - of which there are many - where the goal of the action is to defeat or affect someone else.




Stealth determines how well you are hiding.  The other guy uses Perception to determine how well they are noticing.

Presumably Arcana to erase a sigil affects the sigil, not the caster, and in any event would have a DC based on the caster's level/ability.

Beating somebody in a race would be an opposed Athletics check.  You are each rolling for your own success; you rolling well doesn't make the other person go slower.

How does that work for Persuasion?

And....on top of all of that, I still have strong opposition to anything that tells me what my character thinks.  You have given this example of "You may think of yourself as the best fighter around, but if you keep getting beaten you won't be able to keep believing that, so the mechanics do affect why you think."  Or something like that.

I disagree.  I may lose every single fight, but if I want my character to still think he's the baddest dude ever...who just happens to have excuses for all those losses...that's my business, not the DMs.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

Double post.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Again, I think what you're identifying here is a bad mechanic. There's no actual game I know of that involves social mechanics that works as you describe. Burning Wheel comes closest, but its Persuasion skill pertains to requests or proposals, not full-scale conversion, and the obstacle penalty in these circumstances would be +2 (so Hitler might be rolling 7 or 8 dice hoping to get 4+ on 6 of them, if the spy has Will 4 - which would be at the lower end for a top-notch spy).
> 
> Furthermore, in BW the player is always free to call for a Duel of Wits if s/he thinks it's a big deal. So instead of just being persuaded on a single check, s/he can start debating the point with Hitler and have the thing unfold as a debate or argument between them. If Hitler wins that DoW, then that is the outcome of a sustained piece of resolution in which the player matched his/her PC against Hitler!
> 
> ...




My example with Hitler was a bit exaggerated for effect and to clearly demonstrate the concern that folks seem to have.

I’m not calling for games that have such mechanics to discard them, or saying that allowing NPC skills to dictate PC behavior is always bad. I’m just saying when a rules system doesn’t have clear mechanics in this area, and yes 5E fits that bill, then the way I handle it is by having players make checks rather than NPCs.

Generally, I want to allow the players to decide how their characters behave and react in all but extreme circumstances. And this works for my game. 

I actually prefer the looser skill rules.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Again, I think what you're identifying here is a bad mechanic. There's no actual game I know of that involves social mechanics that works as you describe



 A 3.x Diplomancer could turn a hateful enemy into a fanatically loyal follower with a mere 150 DC check.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 9, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> A 3.x Diplomancer could turn a hateful enemy into a fanatically loyal follower with a mere 150 DC check.



Even if the target was a PC and the Diplomancer an NPC?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 9, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Even if the target was a PC and the Diplomancer an NPC?



Technically?  Not sure, it's been a while, and my strongest memories on the subject are of 1e's morale rules (PCs never check morale).  
But the spirit of 3.x tended towards the same rules applying to everyone.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 9, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> A 3.x Diplomancer could turn a hateful enemy into a fanatically loyal follower with a mere 150 DC check.




You joke, but you could shift someone from Hostile to Indifferent with a DC 25 skill check. 

Going from Hostile to Helpful was DC 50. Which isn’t impossible at high levels, but not very likely. But you didn’t ever need to go that far. Indifferent was usually enough. They go from hating you and being willing to take risks to harm you to not caring about you at all.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 10, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Stealth determines how well you are hiding.  The other guy uses Perception to determine how well they are noticing.
> 
> Presumably Arcana to erase a sigil affects the sigil, not the caster, and in any event would have a DC based on the caster's level/ability.
> 
> ...



You oppose with Will, or Resolve, or Stubbornness. At least, that's how it works in the systems I'm familiar with.



Elfcrusher said:


> I still have strong opposition to anything that tells me what my character thinks.  You have given this example of "You may think of yourself as the best fighter around, but if you keep getting beaten you won't be able to keep believing that, so the mechanics do affect why you think."  Or something like that.
> 
> I disagree.  I may lose every single fight, but if I want my character to still think he's the baddest dude ever...who just happens to have excuses for all those losses...that's my business, not the DMs.



I was focusing not on the character's self-conception, but the _player's_ conception of the character.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 10, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> You joke, but you could shift someone from Hostile to Indifferent with a DC 25 skill check.
> 
> Going from Hostile to Helpful was DC 50. Which isn’t impossible at high levels, but not very likely. But you didn’t ever need to go that far. Indifferent was usually enough. They go from hating you and being willing to take risks to harm you to not caring about you at all.



This is another example of bad mechanics: the DC doesn't reflect the fiction. Compare the combat system, where Captain America's physical resolve is reflected not just in AC but also hit points.

(I'm not a 3E/PF expert, so I'm taking the presentation of those systems at face value.)


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You oppose with Will, or Resolve, or Stubbornness. At least, that's how it works in the systems I'm familiar with.




And I think that's where we differ.  In games that have things like Will or Resolve I believe it should only be used (when it's used for 'resistance') against supernatural/magical effects.  In mundane situations it's up to the player.  I don't think I'd enjoy a game where "Stubbornness" is a defined stat, any more than "Politeness", "Irreverence", "Introversion/Extroversion", etc.  That should all be up to the player.

The part I find odd about discussing this with you is that I understand (well, I think I understand) what you're saying, and I just have a different...and fairly straightforward and consistent...view.  But your posts have this aura of confusion, as if I'm describing something bewildering and alien.  I can't tell if that's just a rhetorical technique, or if you genuinely don't understand my point of view. 



pemerton said:


> I was focusing not on the character's self-conception, but the player's conception of the character.




Oh...whoah.  That was not at all what I thought we were talking about.

That sort of thing seems to happen over the Internet a lot.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Stealth determines how well you are hiding.  The other guy uses Perception to determine how well they are noticing.
> 
> Presumably Arcana to erase a sigil affects the sigil, not the caster, and in any event would have a DC based on the caster's level/ability.
> 
> ...




But, I don't quite understand here.

The mechanics are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are not perceptive enough to see someone stealthing.  How is that different from the mechanics telling you that you find this person to be persuasive?  As far as rolling for athletics, well, the rules are actually silent on that fact.  It's a pretty abstract system.  There's no reason that you couldn't describe my high check meaning that you ran slower.  After all, the mechanics are telling you that you are not running as fast as you can (presumably you didn't roll a maximum athletics check).  You can claim you are running as fast as you can, but, the mechanics tell a different story.  

In the case of an athletics check, there is actually no failure.  You always run as fast as you can.  But, the mechanics determine that your "as fast as you can" in this instance is not fast enough.  Why you aren't running as fast as you can (because you didn't roll a 20) isn't explained in the rules.  You can interpret it any way you like.

I really don't understand the fixation on the divide here.  The mechanics tell you what happens.  They don't tell you why it happened.  They never do.  Why did you do X damage to the creature this round and Y the next?  Well, that's up to you to figure out.  Same with any sort of social mechanics.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 10, 2018)

"The mechanics are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are not perceptive enough to see someone stealthing. How is that different from the mechanics telling you that you find this person to be persuasive?"

The first is describing what your character sees, not what you think about it, not whether you find it beautiful or ugly or any other judgement.

The latter is telling you how your character feels about it. 

The first is a presentation of the world (perhaps an accurate one, perhaps not) and the latter is a presentation of your character's thoughts.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is another example of bad mechanics: the DC doesn't reflect the fiction. Compare the combat system, where Captain America's physical resolve is reflected not just in AC but also hit points.
> 
> (I'm not a 3E/PF expert, so I'm taking the presentation of those systems at face value.)




Not to defend 3E and its iterations, but I’m sure that there was a whole slew of modifiers that could be added to the roll that would make it more or less likely. I find the basic ideas of skill checks and DCs to be a pretty straightforward mechanic that is then lost in a morass of modifiers. 

I prefer to keep things simpler unless the complexity adds something to the game experience. I don’t think 3E pulled that off. 

Different strokes and all, but I don’t like highly codified rules.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 10, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The part I find odd about discussing this with you is that I understand (well, I think I understand) what you're saying, and I just have a different...and fairly straightforward and consistent...view.  But your posts have this aura of confusion, as if I'm describing something bewildering and alien.  I can't tell if that's just a rhetorical technique, or if you genuinely don't understand my point of view.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The two sides of the <snippage> may not be unrelated.

In this thread (and others, maybe?) you've talked about the importance of the player deciding what the PC thinks. I can't see how that matters, _except as a particular instance of a more general phenomenon_ - the general phenomenon being _preserving the player's conception of the PC_.

My views about _preserving the player's conception of the PC_ are mixed - maybe confused, or at least in tension - because it is something that is quite important to me, but I also prefer RPGs where it is put under pressure. The resolution of the tension, for me, I think, is a practical thing: the player's conception shouldn't be yielding to that pressure accidentally or trivially, but only because of the players' deliberate choice to accept that pressure, by putting his/her PC to the test.

A game where this happens only on occasion, at the moments of truth, is less draining/demanding, I think, than one where this is the norm: I would contrast 4e and, say, Burning Wheel in this respect. 4e gives the player a _lot_ of devices to buffer against that sort of pressure and so preserve his/her conception of his/her PC. Because of the generally abstract nature of its resolution system, it also gives the GM a lot of scope to narrate outcomes in ways that tend to be less undermining of the players' conception of the character.

An alternative take on this "tension", among the games I play regularly, is found in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic RP: the conception of the PC is almost always potentially under pressure, but the whole context of play and the stakes of the game are sufficiently light-hearted that most of the time the dint to the players' conception of the PC will be amusing or a bit ironic (as befits a 4 colour comics RPG) rather than really deep or challenging to the player.

In any event, the point of the above is this: if one is playing a RPG in which the players' conception of the PC is subject to challenge and even refutation, I don't see how it makes any difference if that challenge or refutation comes on the social side rather than (say) the physical side, or as a result of magic.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In any event, the point of the above is this: if one is playing a RPG in which the players' conception of the PC is subject to challenge and even refutation, I don't see how it makes any difference if that challenge or refutation comes on the social side rather than (say) the physical side, or as a result of magic.




I think this is the core of the disagreement.

What I can't tell whether your puzzlement is because:
A) you think my line of demarcation is vague and inconsistent
B) you think there's no functional difference twixt the physical and the mental and therefore no especially good reason for having that line of demarcation.

If it's just B then it's entirely a matter of gaming aesthetic.  One thing we can determine with certainty from these forums is that there are many different approaches to RPGs and roleplaying.  

If it's A then...well, I don't know what to say about that.  The distinction is pretty clear to me.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 10, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> you think my line of demarcation is vague and inconsistent



By your line of demarcation I take it you mean "magic" vs "mundane"? I think that's clear enough, although I gess there might be borderline cases.

If you mean "mental" vs "physical" that's more prone to borderline cases (is staying awake while tired mental or physical?) but will be clear enough much of the time.



Elfcrusher said:


> B) you think there's no functional difference twixt the physical and the mental and therefore no especially good reason for having that line of demarcation.
> 
> If it's just B then it's entirely a matter of gaming aesthetic.  One thing we can determine with certainty from these forums is that there are many different approaches to RPGs and roleplaying.



I don't know what "functional" difference you have in mind.

What I don't get is the gaming aesthetic. As in, it's pretty opaque to me why my conception of this bit of my imagined alter-ego ("I'm the toughest guy there is") is fair game for being undone, but this other bit ("I'm the bravest/shrewdest/whatever guy there is") is not.

One idea that I had reading the thread when it first started was that the issue for some posters was one of the allocation of authority over the shared fiction: the GM has authority over everything else, so the inside of the PC's head is the player's last bastion. I don't know if that is something like what you're thinking, or not; but I can see the logic of it. Though it's not a way of thinking that moves me very much, because I don't play games in which the GM has authority over everything else.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> By your line of demarcation I take it you mean "magic" vs "mundane"? I think that's clear enough, although I gess there might be borderline cases.
> 
> If you mean "mental" vs "physical" that's more prone to borderline cases (*is staying awake while tired mental or physical*?) but will be clear enough much of the time.




Physical.  The DM can tell me I'm tired, and even suffer a penalty to rolls because of it, but he's not allowed to tell me how I feel about being tired.  "You're grumpy because you want some sleep" is off-limits.



> I don't know what "functional" difference you have in mind.
> 
> What I don't get is the gaming aesthetic. As in, it's pretty opaque to me why my conception of this bit of my imagined alter-ego ("I'm the toughest guy there is") is fair game for being undone, but this other bit ("I'm the bravest/shrewdest/whatever guy there is") is not.




Huh?  "I'm the toughest guy there is" is not fair game.  Despite an absolute preponderance of evidence, if I want my character to believe he is the toughest guy around...or the bravest, or the shrewdest, etc....then that's my prerogative.  

I think what you are referring to is whether or not he is _actually_ so tough that he can shrug off a mechanic that says he takes damage, or stand tall to a mechanic that specifies he must flee, etc., and why those are categorically different.  By the categorization you are emphasizing, they aren't.

But that's only because you don't value the categorization I use: whether or not my character's emotions and thoughts are being dictated.  And, unless it is supernatural or magical, it is never ok to dictate those thoughts.



> One idea that I had reading the thread when it first started was that the issue for some posters was one of the allocation of authority over the shared fiction: the GM has authority over everything else, so the inside of the PC's head is the player's last bastion. I don't know if that is something like what you're thinking, or not; but I can see the logic of it. Though it's not a way of thinking that moves me very much, because I don't play games in which the GM has authority over everything else.




No, it's not.  I actually prefer to have the players contribute to the fiction in a broader sense. It's too much work to do it all myself.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 10, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "The mechanics are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are not perceptive enough to see someone stealthing. How is that different from the mechanics telling you that you find this person to be persuasive?"
> 
> The first is describing what your character sees, not what you think about it, not whether you find it beautiful or ugly or any other judgement.
> 
> ...



 Meh.  Perception isn't about being physically blind if you fail the check, it's about noticing things.  That, too, is about your character's thoughts.  If your character looks across a stream at some bushes and fails his perception check he sees the bushes rustle and thinks nothing of it, if he makes the check he wisely interprets the movement as someone skulking about.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In the context of 5e I don't really know how to answer this question. I don't think the 5e ability check/skill system, in it's basic form, is robust enough to support a strong system for social interaction, or other clear contributions to resolving conflicts; and my 5e design-fu is not strong enough to just come up with a robust variant. (The system presents some exceptions eg using Athletics in some hand-to-hand conflicts. But those don't provide an obvious model for generalising to other abilities/skills.)
> 
> In 4e, it's easy to envisage using Arcana to impose a penalty on a character. My own play experience is with Religion in that respect rather than Arcana (eg speaking a prayer to the Raven Queen to impose a penalty on an undead opponent) but I don't think Arcana would be any different (eg if the opponent was an elemental).
> 
> Am I talking about the right sort of thing to address your question?




5E has a fairly clear resolution for persuasion. DMG 244-245. It presumes the target to be an NPC. One can, however, readily apply it to the PC by having the player pick the initial reaction.

A 20 on the Cha check to get them to do a task is sufficient to get them to do things for a price.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> A 20 on the Cha check to get them to do a task is sufficient to get them to do things for a price.




Ewwww.

"The Duke would like you to rescue his daughter before the kidnappers kill her.  He'll pay 100g."
"Mmm...thanks, but no thanks.  I'd rather go back to the cave complex and see if we can steal the magic beer stein from the duerger..."
(Rolls) "Sorry, but he rolled a nat 20 on his Persuade check.  You are persuaded."

Not a table I'd be at for very long.

EDIT: The way I might handle something like this is to use what I know about the players to try to _actually_ persuade them, if the Duke rolled well.  But under no circumstances would they be required to accept a price.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "The mechanics are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are not perceptive enough to see someone stealthing. How is that different from the mechanics telling you that you find this person to be persuasive?"
> 
> The first is describing what your character sees, not what you think about it, not whether you find it beautiful or ugly or any other judgement.
> 
> ...




No. 

Both are telling you what the reality of the game world is.  Full stop.  It is directing the world.  You are running slower than you possibly can even though you, the player, are stating that you are running as fast as you can?  How is that any different?  The game rules are taking away your ability to dictate the in-game fiction.  And that's fine.  We accept it all the time.  I can state how hard I hit that orc until I'm blue in the face, but, the mechancs and the dice tell us what actually happened.  (well, kinda anyway)

How are your character's thoughts not part of the game world?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Physical.  The DM can tell me I'm tired, and even suffer a penalty to rolls because of it, but he's not allowed to tell me how I feel about being tired.  "You're grumpy because you want some sleep" is off-limits.
> /snip




Why?  The psychological effects of lack of sleep are pretty well documented.  It's certainly not unreasonable that your character is grumpy because he's tired.  Heck, in 5e, you suffer disadvantage on your Persuasion checks if you have 1 level of exhaustion, so, "You're grumpy because you want some sleep" is perfectly in keeping with the mechanics.  

What's the problem here?


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Meh.  Perception isn't about being physically blind if you fail the check, it's about noticing things.  That, too, is about your character's thoughts.  If your character looks across a stream at some bushes and fails his perception check he sees the bushes rustle and thinks nothing of it, if he makes the check he wisely interprets the movement as someone skulking about.



Or the bushes did not rustle at the time his attention was on them and not the owl that hooted off the other way.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ewwww.
> 
> "The Duke would like you to rescue his daughter before the kidnappers kill her.  He'll pay 100g."
> "Mmm...thanks, but no thanks.  I'd rather go back to the cave complex and see if we can steal the magic beer stein from the duerger..."
> ...



"You are persuaded."

To find the door, yep.

Agree... As gm i have tons at my disposal to not make this a no choice quest due to die roll. How pathetic a duke if he cannot get even this done?


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ewwww.
> 
> "The Duke would like you to rescue his daughter before the kidnappers kill her.  He'll pay 100g."
> "Mmm...thanks, but no thanks.  I'd rather go back to the cave complex and see if we can steal the magic beer stein from the duerger..."
> ...




As a GM, I'd let you act against it... but you just forfeit all XP for the encounter, and probably also the session.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> "The Duke would like you to rescue his daughter before the kidnappers kill her.  He'll pay 100g."
> "Mmm...thanks, but no thanks.  I'd rather go back to the cave complex and see if we can steal the magic beer stein from the duerger..."
> (Rolls) "Sorry, but he rolled a nat 20 on his Persuade check.  You are persuaded."
> 
> ...



In our current Pathfinder game my DM would simply have a court mage standing beside the duke casting a Geas on the PC party to make sure they accept his 'offer'.

Yeah, it sucks.


----------



## Caliburn101 (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ewwww.
> 
> "The Duke would like you to rescue his daughter before the kidnappers kill her.  He'll pay 100g."
> "Mmm...thanks, but no thanks.  I'd rather go back to the cave complex and see if we can steal the magic beer stein from the duerger..."
> ...




Social encounters and how the rules work are the most tricky to GM. But here you seem to be advocating that if an NPC rolls a nat. 20 on an attack roll, or another skill against a player, that it's fine that working as per RAW, but if it's a persuade check, you'd walk away from the table?

With the same logic, would you advocate the GM ignoring a nat. 20 from the social skilled character in the group when they try to convince the King to up the reward?

This sort of thing would have to be a house rule agreed upon before the game, and would be a pretty odd one at that.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> "... I'd rather go back to the cave complex and see if we can steal the magic beer stein from the duerger..."



Magic beer stein?

Now that's the type of party I want to be in!  Sign me up!


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 11, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> As a GM, I'd let you act against it... but you just forfeit all XP for the encounter, and probably also the session.



What if the party agree to rescue the princess, do so, and then themselves hold her for ransom because they know that cheapass Duke is good for tens of thousands of g.p. and he only offered a measly 100 for the return of his daughter.

Never mind that on the PCs telling the daughter how low a value he puts on her it might not be a kidnapping any more: she might just throw in with the PCs then and there and go off adventuring!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> "The Duke would like you to rescue his daughter before the kidnappers kill her.  He'll pay 100g."
> "Mmm...thanks, but no thanks.  I'd rather go back to the cave complex and see if we can steal the magic beer stein from the duerger..."
> (Rolls) "Sorry, but he rolled a nat 20 on his Persuade check.  You are persuaded."
> 
> Not a table I'd be at for very long.



Likewise, but I think for different reasons.



5ekyu said:


> "You are persuaded."
> 
> To find the door, yep.
> 
> Agree... As gm i have tons at my disposal to not make this a no choice quest due to die roll. How pathetic a duke if he cannot get even this done?



I'm not sure I follow your reasoning as to why the duke is pathetic. One way duke's get things done is by persuading others to do them; which is exactly what is being suggested in the example (ie the duke persuades the PCs to help).



Elfcrusher said:


> Huh?  "I'm the toughest guy there is" is not fair game.  Despite an absolute preponderance of evidence, if I want my character to believe he is the toughest guy around...or the bravest, or the shrewdest, etc....then that's my prerogative.
> 
> I think what you are referring to is whether or not he is _actually_ so tough that he can shrug off a mechanic that says he takes damage, or stand tall to a mechanic that specifies he must flee, etc., and why those are categorically different.  By the categorization you are emphasizing, they aren't.
> 
> But that's only because you don't value the categorization I use: whether or not my character's emotions and thoughts are being dictated.  And, unless it is supernatural or magical, it is never ok to dictate those thoughts.



Well, like I said, I'm not talking about the PC's self-conception, I'm talking about the player's conception of his/her character (so the "I" in "I'm the toughest guy there is" is doubly-referring, to both player and PC - I think this is pretty common in 1st person RPGing conversation.)

Being the toughest guy there is doesn't mean that I can shrug of anything - there might be some blows so heavy even the toughest guy there is can't handle them. But clearly (just to pick on an easy D&D example) the _toughest guy there is_ isn't going to beaten by a kobold in a wrestling or boxing match!

If the system allows that conception of the character to be refuted (eg because the PC _does_ get beaten by a kobold in a wrestling match) then that is something that is important to me about the system. Like I tried to explain upthread, it's not a reason I won't like the system, but I want the system to be _deliberate_ in the way it lets this happen. _Deliberate_ isn't very precise here, and is a bit metaphorical, but I hope the earlier post gives some idea of what I mean. An example of a system that is _non-deliberate_ in this respect would be Moldvay Basic, and other low-level D&D other than 4e.

What produced the tone of puzzlement in my earlier posts, that you remarked upon, is that while I can read your words, and (as best I can tell) I can understand them, I'm having trouble grasping the aesthetic perspective that (A) doesn't, in general, care about protecting the player's conception of the PC, but (B) does get ultra-protective about it if (i) the aspect of that conception is _what the PC thinks and feels_, and (ii) the possible refutation is not coming from what, in the fiction, is a magical source.

I'm not feeling the aesthetic significance of these particular points of demarcation - your _categorization_.

(Of course, you're not under any obligation to explain/elaborate if you don't care to! I'm just trying to answer your question about puzzlement.)


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What produced the tone of puzzlement in my earlier posts, that you remarked upon, is that while I can read your words, and (as best I can tell) I can understand them, I'm having trouble grasping the aesthetic perspective that (A) doesn't, in general, care about protecting the player's conception of the PC, but (B) does get ultra-protective about it if (i) the aspect of that conception is _what the PC thinks and feels_, and (ii) the possible refutation is not coming from what, in the fiction, is a magical source.
> 
> I'm not feeling the aesthetic significance of these particular points of demarcation - your _categorization_.
> 
> (Of course, you're not under any obligation to explain/elaborate if you don't care to! I'm just trying to answer your question about puzzlement.)




Excellent explanation.  And I do understand why, if you don't appreciate the aesthetic difference, there would be puzzlement over the distinction.  Not what the distinction is, which you seem to understand, but why it's important to make the distinction.

I think we should leave it at "I really don't like Pointillism" without me being able to persuade somebody else that Seurat is not aesthetically pleasing.

Cheers!


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

Caliburn101 said:


> Social encounters and how the rules work are the most tricky to GM. But here you seem to be advocating that if an NPC rolls a nat. 20 on an attack roll, or another skill against a player, that it's fine that working as per RAW, but if it's a persuade check, you'd walk away from the table?




Ummm...how about because there is no actual rule that says creature A _must_ do whatever creature B says, if B succeeds on a Persuade roll?

By "walk away from the table" I'll assume you mean that I might graciously decline future invitations, and not that I would storm off in a hissy fit as soon as the DM made the ruling. (Because who on the Internet would twist somebody's words into an extreme caricature in order to make them look irrational?)  So, yes, I would.



> With the same logic, would you advocate the GM ignoring a nat. 20 from the social skilled character in the group when they try to convince the King to up the reward?




Depends on how much they were asking for.  Even a Nat 20 isn't a Compulsion spell.  

The larger difference is that the King is a Non-Player Character.  Not a "DM Character", a _Non_-Player Character.  Social skills are there to help the DM make "neutral" decisions on behalf of NPCs.  In other words, the PC's mind and thoughts are the player's mind and thoughts, but that is not true between NPC and DM.  So it's handy (but not necessary) to let the dice make decisions.

This is just how I play, and interpret the game.  I make no claims for official D&D philosophy.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> In our current Pathfinder game my DM would simply have a court mage standing beside the duke casting a Geas on the PC party to make sure they accept his 'offer'.
> 
> Yeah, it sucks.




But, according to the prevailing opinions in this thread, that action is perfectly fine.  I absolutely cannot use skills on the PC's, but, spells are perfectly fine.

So, what's the problem?  Why does it suck?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, according to the prevailing opinions in this thread, that action is perfectly fine.  I absolutely cannot use skills on the PC's, but, spells are perfectly fine.
> 
> So, what's the problem?  Why does it suck?




I really hope you are being disingenuous with that question, as a rhetorical technique to suggest a contradiction in...and thus discredit...the underlying opinion.

If you _genuinely_ don't understand why it would suck to have a DM do that let me know and I will spell out the answer.


----------



## Caliburn101 (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ewwww.
> 
> Not a table I'd be at for very long.




If you want to complain on the basis of your assumption that _I_ assumed you would storm off in a 'hissy fit' as _you_ put it (which I _did not_) - try to put you point across on how you would react in a way which doesn't strongly imply you find such a ruling distasteful and intolerable enough to stay at.

Something like "With a ruling like that, if I couldn't convince the GM away from the table to be more flexible, I'd probably withdraw from the game." would have better.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The larger difference is that the King is a Non-Player Character.  Not a "DM Character", a _Non_-Player Character.  Social skills are there to help the DM make "neutral" decisions on behalf of NPCs.  In other words, the PC's mind and thoughts are the player's mind and thoughts, *but that is not true between NPC and DM.* So it's handy (but not necessary) to let the dice make decisions.



This distinction somehow feels artificial, fake, weak, nonexistant, and forced as a means to avoid the possibility that players be subject to similar social rules as NPCs. I don't think this is a particularly compelling argument. Why is that not true? That is the glaring gap that exists in the argument. Because it sounds like you are telling GMs that they are not getting in the headspace of the NPCs in the manner that players do with their PCs. That's almost offensive towards GMs. I have seen GMs more in their NPCs headspace than I have seen players with their PCs. So it seems that your "difference" has only been artificially constructed to preserve an "immunity" for your PC from being subjected to the same mechanics that GM NPCs are subjected to following.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

Caliburn101 said:


> If you want to complain on the basis of your assumption that _I_ assumed you would storm off in a 'hissy fit' as _you_ put it (which I _did not_) - try to put you point across on how you would react in a way which doesn't strongly imply you find such a ruling distasteful and intolerable enough to stay at.
> 
> Something like "With a ruling like that, if I couldn't convince the GM away from the table to be more flexible, I'd probably withdraw from the game." would have better.




Oh, gosh, I've been put in my place.  I'm sure this has nothing to do with your general annoyance with me.  I'll try harder to adhere to your expectations in the future.

/yawn


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> This distinction somehow feels artificial, fake, weak, nonexistant, and forced as a means to avoid the possibility that players be subject to similar social rules as NPCs. I don't think this is a particularly compelling argument. Why is that not true? That is the glaring gap that exists in the argument. Because it sounds like you are telling GMs that they are not getting in the headspace of the NPCs in the manner that players do with their PCs. That's almost offensive towards GMs. I have seen GMs more in their NPCs headspace than I have seen players with their PCs. So it seems that your "difference" has only been artificially constructed to preserve an "immunity" for your PC from being subjected to the same mechanics that GM NPCs are subjected to following.




Wow.  How do you really feel?

When I DM/GM I like this approach because, having (largely) perfect knowledge of the world I can't really negotiate in good faith.  I don't have to worry about being either too lenient or too adversarial with the players.  So, yeah, maybe I'm being "offensive" toward myself, but I don't want to be in that position. The dice decide.

I assume, on the other hand, that players are maneuvering for what is most advantageous for their goals (regardless of whether those are powergaming or roleplaying goals).  Good.  They should be.  They don't need dice to tell them what they think.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Or the bushes did not rustle at the time his attention was on them and not the owl that hooted off the other way.



 Still about what the character thinks.  On failed perception he hears an owl, thinks, "oh, that might be important" looks over in that direction, and misses the stealthy enemy's movement; on the same roll but with a higher perception bonus such that he succeeds, he hears the owl (because success doesn't make you deaf anymore than failure makes you blind), thinks "that's just an owl," ignores the distraction and spots the enemy.  

It's skill checks "telling" you how your character thinks & reacts.  



Hussar said:


> But, according to the prevailing opinions in this thread, that action is perfectly fine.  I absolutely cannot use skills on the PC's, but, spells are perfectly fine.
> So, what's the problem?  Why does it suck?



 Still a railroad.  Whether the DM uses a Geas-casting uberwizard or a Diplomancer to send the PCs on a quest whether the players want to go (or feel their characters wouldn't want to go) or not, it's still a pretty heavy-handed 'hook.'

And, it's not like the DM can't persuade the party to go on any given quest, without resorting to either, he just presents the quests in terms they'll go for, then switches it once they're committed.  So, rather than say "the Duke offers you 100gp to save his daughter" the DM offers them 10,000 gp, then, later, it's revealed that there's 9900 gp in taxes withheld, or it's 10,000 local gold /pennies/ not standard gold pieces, and comes to 100gp, or the written contract says 100.  The difference is just whether the group wants tricking the PCs to be based on the abilities of the PCs, or if the DM is just going to arbitrarily decide when tricks succeed, and describe things accordingly.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Still about what the character thinks.  On failed perception he hears an owl, thinks, "oh, that might be important" looks over in that direction, and misses the stealthy enemy's movement; on the same roll but with a higher perception bonus such that he succeeds, he hears the owl (because success doesn't make you deaf anymore than failure makes you blind), thinks "that's just an owl," ignores the distraction and spots the enemy.
> 
> It's skill checks "telling" you how your character thinks & reacts.




I think we're starting to get into neurobiology and the regions of the brain here.

Sure...everything we humans do & perceive involves circuits in our brains lighting up, so in that sense hearing something is "thinking".  But are you _really_ arguing that there's just one kind of brain activity that covers motor reflexes, sensory perception, and whether or not to accept the Duke's offer?  (I mean, this could easily get into a debate about free will vs. the illusion of free will, etc.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I think we're starting to get into neurobiology and the regions of the brain here.
> 
> Sure...everything we humans do & perceive involves circuits in our brains lighting up, so in that sense hearing something is "thinking".  But are you _really_ arguing that there's just one kind of brain activity that covers motor reflexes, sensory perception, and whether or not to accept the Duke's offer?  (I mean, this could easily get into a debate about free will vs. the illusion of free will, etc.)



 It's making a judgement.  You're keeping watch.  Which sensory cues do you investigate and which do you ignore?  In a game with a stealth/perception resolution system, those decisions about how your character thinks & acts are taken away from you, and replaced with a die roll.  

I think maybe the fiction is being evaluated in the wrong way.  If a scene progresses with stakes, bonuses, DCs, & rolls all above board, then they can be resolved, and the resulting fiction crafted in accord with the characters involved.  So, say, your character, a woodsy ranger type who knows the local area well, is standing watch.  He fails a check to notice a goblin sneaking by.  The DM could narrate, unilaterally, "the night passes uneventfully, the wind rustles some bushes, and owl hoots and distracts you for a few moments, but you notice nothing important."  You might come back and object "my character knows the area really well, he wouldn't be distracted by an owl if that were normal for the area, and if it weren't he'd've investigated it!"  That could then break down into an argument where you're essentially arguing you should have succeeded, when, really, you've failed, and the objective should be to narrate that appropriately.  Instead, the DM might ask, "well, what might have distracted your character long enough for someone to sneak by?" and run with that if it makes sense.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 11, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> This distinction somehow feels artificial, fake, weak, nonexistant, and forced as a means to avoid the possibility that players be subject to similar social rules as NPCs. I don't think this is a particularly compelling argument. Why is that not true? That is the glaring gap that exists in the argument. Because it sounds like you are telling GMs that they are not getting in the headspace of the NPCs in the manner that players do with their PCs. That's almost offensive towards GMs. I have seen GMs more in their NPCs headspace than I have seen players with their PCs. So it seems that your "difference" has only been artificially constructed to preserve an "immunity" for your PC from being subjected to the same mechanics that GM NPCs are subjected to following.






			
				Elfcrusher said:
			
		

> When I DM/GM I like this approach because, having (largely) perfect knowledge of the world I can't really negotiate in good faith. I don't have to worry about being either too lenient or too adversarial with the players. So, yeah, maybe I'm being "offensive" toward myself, but I don't want to be in that position. The dice decide.
> 
> I assume, on the other hand, that players are maneuvering for what is most advantageous for their goals (regardless of whether those are powergaming or roleplaying goals). Good. They should be. They don't need dice to tell them what they think.



And the problem here is that you're both right.

Ideally the DM plays the NPCs just like a player plays a PC, as [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] suggests.  But in reality a DM can't easily do that because her knowledge will always* vastly exceed that of the NPC she's playing, and she has to be very careful that said meta-knowledge doesn't creep in.  Hence, in situations where it might, dice are a handy fallback.

* - unless said NPC is an omniscient deity, at which point the DM can turn loose all the knowledge she has.

Lanefan


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's making a judgement.  You're keeping watch.  Which sensory cues do you investigate and which do you ignore?  In a game with a stealth/perception resolution system, those decisions about how your character thinks & acts are taken away from you, and replaced with a die roll.
> 
> I think maybe the fiction is being evaluated in the wrong way.  If a scene progresses with stakes, bonuses, DCs, & rolls all above board, then they can be resolved, and the resulting fiction crafted in accord with the characters involved.  So, say, your character, a woodsy ranger type who knows the local area well, is standing watch.  He fails a check to notice a goblin sneaking by.  The DM could narrate, unilaterally, "the night passes uneventfully, the wind rustles some bushes, and owl hoots and distracts you for a few moments, but you notice nothing important."  You might come back and object "my character knows the area really well, he wouldn't be distracted by an owl if that were normal for the area, and if it weren't he'd've investigated it!"  That could then break down into an argument where you're essentially arguing you should have succeeded, when, really, you've failed, and the objective should be to narrate that appropriately.  Instead, the DM might ask, "well, what might have distracted your character long enough for someone to sneak by?" and run with that if it makes sense.




We're basically in agreement here.  Where I think we might differ is when the dice would result in telling a player, "You believe the NPC" even when the player does not believe he NPC.  Or "You are persuaded by the Duke" even when the player is not persuaded by the Duke.  Or "You like broccoli" even when the player does not want his character to like broccoli.

I can't tell if I am doing a poor job of describing the distinction, or whether there is some resistance to wanting to accept the existence of that distinction*. None of the examples I've seen so far fall even remotely into any kind of grey area for me, but apparently they do for others.  And even if such a grey area is found, as it has been said "the existence of dawn does not invalidate the difference between day and night."  

*(I do note that some of those in this thread most opposed to my interpretation are also some of the most vocal defenders of Warlords, and an acceptance of the distinction in question here might validate my main argument against Warlords.  Or maybe I'm imagining things....)

In any event, let's take the argument to the other extreme: if dice rolls for mental/emotional actions take precedence over player thoughts/desires, how do we handle puzzles and riddles?  If the player solves a puzzle, but his character fails an Int check, does that mean he fails the puzzle?  If so, why bother to have _actual_ puzzles in the game?  Why not just describe them abstractly?  "You encounter some kind of puzzle with spinning wheels and shapes and symbols on them.  Make an Int check to see if you can solve it."  "Yup, you find the solution, and with a click the doors open..."

Thoughts?


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 11, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> What if the party agree to rescue the princess, do so, and then themselves hold her for ransom because they know that cheapass Duke is good for tens of thousands of g.p. and he only offered a measly 100 for the return of his daughter.
> 
> Never mind that on the PCs telling the daughter how low a value he puts on her it might not be a kidnapping any more: she might just throw in with the PCs then and there and go off adventuring!




Given that I don't allow Evil alignment, everyone just sacrificed session XP for major alignment violation.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> We're basically in agreement here.  Where I think we might differ is when the dice would result in telling a player, "You believe the NPC" even when the player does not believe he NPC.  Or "You are persuaded by the Duke" even when the player is not persuaded by the Duke.



 It's not really any different.  The issue isn't in having a mechanic that might do that, the issue is more in using the mechanic consistently -  'framing of the resolution' or something (insert Forgite gobbledygook) - and that can depend heavily on the nature of system and the style of the table.

For instance, in 5e D&D, players tend to declare actions and it's the DMs job to narrate the result, calling rolls to resolve uncertainty if he deems that necessary.  That leaves a lot of room to get boxed into this kind of situation, since the system doesn't make a lot of provisions for NPC-initiated tasks.  
Technically the DM doesn't even need to roll, he can open with, "You are on a mission from the Duke to rescue his daughter."  "But, Idawanna!"  "Tough, you've been persuaded to do so, I determined there was no chance of failure! Mwahahahah!"  

You can avoid that, in most systems, anyway, by taking the resolution mechanic as only that, it determines a result, it resolves a question, does A happen or does B.  How the result came about and what the various characters involved think/feel about it can be something worked out among the DM & players.  If you feel there's no way for B to happen, you should also probably bring that up before a test that could result in it is resolved - assuming the system in question empowers the player to do so, in the first place.



> "You like broccoli" even when the player does not want his character to like broccoli.



 So, like if the master chef prepares broccoli in a way that makes it look, feel, and taste nothing like broccoli, you still won't like it?   



> I can't tell if I am doing a poor job of describing the distinction, or whether there is some resistance to wanting to accept the existence of that distinction



 There's significant resistance to the distinction, for me, at least.  Or, rather, there's a different distinction I'm more concerned with:  The distinction between resolving a task based on the abilities of the character imagined to be performing the task, rather than on the abilities of the player of that character.  



> In any event, let's take the argument to the other extreme: if dice rolls for mental/emotional actions take precedence over player thoughts/desires, how do we handle puzzles and riddles?



 It depends on the nature of the challenge.  If it's something the character is going to solve, 'within the fiction' of the game by dent of it's faculties, knowledge and experience, then it should be a test of that character, like an INT or WIS check in 5e, possibly with a proficiency applying.  If it's something the party can put their heads together on, it could be a group check (a really neat little mechanic, actually, IMHO).  The degree to which the DM describes the challenge could be similar to that of how most things get described.  "It's a sliding puzzle lock, you have to move the panels in the right order, to build the right picture or the trap goes off," for instance, might get the idea across, as well as "the goblin stabs you with it's shortsword" ever does.  The player isn't given enough information to solve the puzzle, in the first place, anyway, so there shouldn't be any second-guessing.

OTOH, if there's nothing in the character's abilities that have any bearing on the 'puzzle' ("There are three levers next to the door, what do you do?"), it's just arbitrary, you pick the right action or not, then the player is as free to pick that action as any other.

A DM can even design challenges in-between.  You present a puzzle, like either of the above, but with added detail and hints that can be gained from successful checks, like Investigation could reveal one of the levers is more worn than the others, or a religion check revealing what the final picture of the puzzle lock should look like.  (4e skill challenges could be like that for puzzles - the characters made checks to uncover details and hints until the players could solve it based on that information, or they accumulated their 3 failures).



> If so, why bother to have _actual_ puzzles in the game?



 Tradition, I suppose.  In the olden days, D&D had few rules to model the abilities or knowledge of the character beyond the specific specialties of its class, so many actions were resolved solely through the player doing a convincing job of describing how his character tried to accomplish something, and the DM judging (often, in the case of young DMs like myself back then, ludicrously, based on 0 applicable life experience) whether it worked or not.  Games are better than that, now, but many players & DMs still don't trust 'em.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

Caliburn101 said:


> Social encounters and how the rules work are the most tricky to GM. But here you seem to be advocating that if an NPC rolls a nat. 20 on an attack roll, or another skill against a player, that it's fine that working as per RAW, but if it's a persuade check, you'd walk away from the table?
> 
> With the same logic, would you advocate the GM ignoring a nat. 20 from the social skilled character in the group when they try to convince the King to up the reward?
> 
> This sort of thing would have to be a house rule agreed upon before the game, and would be a pretty odd one at that.



First, nat 20 on skill checks are not auto suuccess or crits in alk systems like hit!attacks are. 5e already makes them differently.

Second, if the game rules allowed npcs aka gm to roll persuasion to force us to take actions thru social skills on a natural 20, essentially handing every tom dick and harry control over our players... Thats not a setting system game i would go for at the start.

Third, if the system (as 5e and many) defined different impacts for social vs npc vs pc and the gm changed it on the fly, i would thank them for their time and leave.

Always amazed at how popular it is for gms to find more and more ways they need to control player characters.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

"It's skill checks "telling" you how your character thinks & reacts. "

No... Stealth roll determinedcwhether you spotted the npc and there are lots of ways that resolves without also telling you your character's thought.

Made roll get spotted info. Failed roll get unspotted info.

Dukes persuasion... 

Made roll i present a compelling case then you. You get persuasive input.

Failed roll i make unconvincing case, you get non-persuasive input.

In each case you then choose your reactions.


----------



## Caliburn101 (Apr 11, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, gosh, I've been put in my place.  I'm sure this has nothing to do with your general annoyance with me.  I'll try harder to adhere to your expectations in the future.
> 
> /yawn




If you didn't care, you wouldn't reply.

/rolls eyes

Why not change your name to 'Crushedelf'? It would after all better suit your habit of playing the 'poor victim' of every 'mean forum member' that has the temerity to disagree with your arguments, or the willingness to express common sense advice anywhere in your vicinity.

#dontfeedthetroll


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I really hope you are being disingenuous with that question, as a rhetorical technique to suggest a contradiction in...and thus discredit...the underlying opinion.
> 
> If you _genuinely_ don't understand why it would suck to have a DM do that let me know and I will spell out the answer.




But, you've repeatedly stated that magical mind control is okay.  Your problem is with non-magical influences.  So, why is this a problem?

Would I like this?  Probably not.  At least, not after the first couple of times.  But, then again, I'm a lot more lenient about being a good little player and following the DM's hooks.  Coming to the game with the idea that I'm going to do whatever I want to do and get annoyed at the DM for not letting me indulge whatever whim I happen to have at the time is not an approach to the game that I take.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> snip
> 
> In any event, let's take the argument to the other extreme: if dice rolls for mental/emotional actions take precedence over player thoughts/desires, how do we handle puzzles and riddles?  If the player solves a puzzle, but his character fails an Int check, does that mean he fails the puzzle?  If so, why bother to have _actual_ puzzles in the game?  Why not just describe them abstractly?  "You encounter some kind of puzzle with spinning wheels and shapes and symbols on them.  Make an Int check to see if you can solve it."  "Yup, you find the solution, and with a click the doors open..."
> 
> Thoughts?




Personally, I'd be perfectly happy ejecting puzzles out of the game.  Hate them.  Mystery is great.  But puzzles and riddles?  Yeah, not something I ever, ever use in a game.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "It's skill checks "telling" you how your character thinks & reacts. "
> 
> No... Stealth roll determinedcwhether you spotted the npc and there are lots of ways that resolves without also telling you your character's thought.
> 
> ...




Not really though.  Because the Duke's persuasion check gives the same input because it's not like the DM is going to give you two different speeches depending on the die roll.  But, in any case, the failed spot check also tells you what your character is thinking - ie. there is nothing to investigate over there.  There really is no distinction.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 12, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Not really though.  Because the Duke's persuasion check gives the same input because it's not like the DM is going to give you two different speeches depending on the die roll.  But, in any case, the failed spot check also tells you what your character is thinking - ie. there is nothing to investigate over there.  There really is no distinction.



Actually i do use the persuasion check to guide the input and output. Sometimes its a passive check.

I am not reading some boxed text...after all.

As for your belief that not noticing something is some decision, nothing i can do about that. Guess all those folks hit by cars crossing the street really wanted to get hit.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Personally, I'd be perfectly happy ejecting puzzles out of the game.  Hate them.  Mystery is great.  But puzzles and riddles?  Yeah, not something I ever, ever use in a game.




Same.  I never use puzzles.  But it's for a reason related to the principle I've been espousing: puzzle and riddle solving belongs in the domain of what the character "thinks" so you can't use dice rolls, but to not use dice rolls is also problematic.  So out they go.

But for players/DMs who _don't believe_ in the sanctity of the character's thoughts it shouldn't be a problem at all.



Hussar said:


> Not really though.  Because the Duke's persuasion check gives the same input because it's not like the DM is going to give you two different speeches depending on the die roll.




As with [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], I would definitely vary the speech depending on the die roll. I use, or strive to use, roll-then-narrate, not narrate-then-roll.



> But, in any case,* the failed spot check also tells you what your character is thinking* - ie. there is nothing to investigate over there.  There really is no distinction.




Hmm, I don't believe so.  Let's say my character is on watch, and you decide a goblin is sneaking up and hiding behind the well, and you ask me to make a Perception check.  Or, better yet for the purposes of this What If, let's say you make my Perception check for me secretly, and I fail.  Your conclusion is that my character doesn't think there's any reason to investigate by the well.

Then, for reasons of my own but_ entirely coincidentally_, I say, "I guess I'll go investigate by the well."  Do you allow me to do this?  You just decided that my character was thinking there was no reason to do this, so now your version of what my character is thinking is in conflict with my own version of what he is thinking. Who gets to decide?

Sure, it's a contrived scenario, and you can improvise around it*, but hopefully it illustrates the problem with going beyond the simple sensory interpretation of "you don't detect the goblin" and venturing into "you are thinking X".

A lot of people would scream and yell about this (if they ever found out) but I'd even be ok with the DM simply relocating the goblin, so that my serendipitous action declaration doesn't conflict with his/her interpretation of the results of the dice roll.  But what I would not be ok with is the DM saying, "Umm...no, you would have no reason to do this."

The failed Perception roll tells us what the character perceives, not what the character thinks.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, you've repeatedly stated that magical mind control is okay.  Your problem is with non-magical influences.  So, why is this a problem?




Oops, missed this one.

I believe, given that your posts demonstrate basic literacy and sentience, that you understand that one can simultaneously support the interpretation of a game mechanic and not always support how and why a DM chooses to implement that mechanic.  

I don't mind the unrealistic rules for falling damage in the game, but it would suck if a DM kept putting undetectable 200' deep pit traps in towns and villages.  "But you said you don't mind the rules for falling damage!"

Can we now safely drop this particular line of inquiry?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Caliburn101 said:


> If you didn't care, you wouldn't reply.
> 
> /rolls eyes
> 
> ...




Oh, Cali, of _course_ I care.  I just need space.  It's not you, it's me.  

Remember, we'll always have Tarantia.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 12, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Given that I don't allow Evil alignment, everyone just sacrificed session XP for major alignment violation.



So much for player agency in that game.

And...you give or withhold xp based on playing to alignment?  Hell, that's even more old-school than me!  Didn't think that was possible 'round here... 

Lanefan


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Same.  I never use puzzles.  But it's for a reason related to the principle I've been espousing: puzzle and riddle solving belongs in the domain of what the character "thinks" so you can't use dice rolls, but to not use dice rolls is also problematic.  So out they go.
> 
> But for players/DMs who _don't believe_ in the sanctity of the character's thoughts it shouldn't be a problem at all.
> 
> ...




I dunno. I think Perception rolls often include some measure of interpretation. At least, if you want more interesting options for a roll than Pass/Fail.

How often does it happen that characters in a movie or TV show are sneaking around, but they make a soft noise. Not enough to make it obvious that someone is trying to sneak around, but maybe a rustle in the leaves or something.

How often is it that the characters don't get caught because, "Eh, it's just the wind," or, "Bleeping raccoons"?

How would you handle a scenario like that with such an absolutist stance about player's control of their character's inner life?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Afrodyte said:


> I dunno. I think Perception rolls often include some measure of interpretation. At least, if you want more interesting options for a roll than Pass/Fail.
> 
> How often does it happen that characters in a movie or TV show are sneaking around, but they make a soft noise. Not enough to make it obvious that someone is trying to sneak around, but maybe a rustle in the leaves or something.
> 
> ...




I understand (and agree with) the narrative goal, but not how that bears on this discussion or how it would unfold mechanically.  Do you mean the character sneaking and an NPC failing to detect him, or an NPC sneaking around and a character failing to detect him?  Is this pure narrative frosting, or an actual mechanic? (The difference between, "Nope, you don't hear anything but the wind" and "The guard stops and listens, but then you hear him mutter something about raccoons.")

An illustrative example would be great?

Perhaps a mechanic like Lucky, where a player gets to re-roll a failed check?

It also calls to mind roll-then-narrate: maybe you just barely fail a Perception test, even though you suspect something is up (because the DM asked for a check, after all) so you narrate "I thought I heard something, but it's probably just raccoons."

Am I missing your point entirely?  Curious.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Same.  I never use puzzles.  But it's for a reason related to the principle I've been espousing: puzzle and riddle solving belongs in the domain of what the character "thinks" so you can't use dice rolls, but to not use dice rolls is also problematic.  So out they go.



 If that's where you set the bar, you'd be excluding a lot of challenges and character-modeling mechanics.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The failed Perception roll tells us what the character perceives, not what the character thinks.



 Perceiving necessarily includes interpreting, thus thinking.  A failed perception check doesn't mean you eyes turned off for a round, it means you missed the significance of one or more sensory ques that were present.  It might mean you were looking the wrong way at the wrong time, or were distracted by something.  

A given visualization of the results of a check might or might not fit the character concept or the situation, do it's nice when you're left some lattitude...


----------



## Caliburn101 (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, Cali, of _course_ I care.  I just need space.  It's not you, it's me.
> 
> Remember, we'll always have Tarantia.




 You can have the beach house, I'll take the dog...


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Perceiving necessarily includes interpreting, thus thinking.  A failed perception check doesn't mean you eyes turned off for a round, it means you missed the significance of one or more sensory ques that were present.  It might mean you were looking the wrong way at the wrong time, or were distracted by something.
> 
> A given visualization of the results of a check might or might not fit the character concept or the situation, do it's nice when you're left some lattitude...




Ok, so that puts us back at the "anything involving brain activity is 'thinking'..." so we're just going in circles.  

But that's cool.  Plato thought very highly of circles.


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I understand (and agree with) the narrative goal, but not how that bears on this discussion or how it would unfold mechanically.  Do you mean the character sneaking and an NPC failing to detect him, or an NPC sneaking around and a character failing to detect him?  Is this pure narrative frosting, or an actual mechanic? (The difference between, "Nope, you don't hear anything but the wind" and "The guard stops and listens, but then you hear him mutter something about raccoons.")
> 
> An illustrative example would be great?
> 
> ...




For the sake of making it relevant, let's paint this scenario.

A PC is keeping watch at camp. The DM calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check for the PC on guard duty to notice anything going on near the camp during the night. The PC rolls a total of 14. Meanwhile, a team of ninjas prepares to ambush the camp. The DC to notice them is 15 (10 + their Stealth bonus). 

With a roll that close, the DM decides that the PC on guard duty does hear a rustle in the leaves, but they don't have the right information they need to determine Here Be Ninjas and react accordingly.

Now, to make this a clear-cut example, let's say that the PC on guard duty has a penalty to Wisdom and/or Intelligence, so connecting the dots on the spot may not be their strong suit. And, to make this abundantly clear, let's say that this character's major personality traits do not include jumpy, suspicious or paranoid, and the party has never been ambushed at camp thus far. So, this character has few in-character reasons to go from, "You hear a rustle in the leaves" to, "It's bleeping ninjas."

If the DM is flat-out forbidden from saying that this PC interprets the rustle in the leaves as raccoons or just the wind, what keeps the player from using their personal knowledge that it's probably ninjas as an in-game advantage in this situation (such as not being surprised when the ninjas strike) then claiming that it's what their character knew or thought all along?

Outside of this particular scenario, how do you account for skills like Arcana, History and Investigation without being able, even in a limited fashion, to determine what a character can know, recall, intuit or reason?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Afrodyte said:


> For the sake of making it relevant, let's paint this scenario.
> 
> A PC is keeping watch at camp. The DM calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check for the PC on guard duty to notice anything going on near the camp during the night. The PC rolls a total of 14. Meanwhile, a team of ninjas prepares to ambush the camp. The DC to notice them is 15 (10 + their Stealth bonus).
> 
> ...




Ah, so the "binary knowledge near miss" problem.  This is one reason that traps are so hard to implement (and why, as with puzzles, I largely don't use them).

My p.o.v. on this is that telling the player they hear a rustle, and then relying on them to "roleplay" not believing it is anything more than that, is not fun roleplaying.  This gets us into the weeds about "immersion" and "meta-gaming" but telling me that I hear leaves rustling but asking me to not read anything into it because I failed my perception check is the same as asking me to pretend to not know that trolls regenerate.  

So although the rustle of leaves that gets dismissed is a common trope in suspenseful movies, it's difficult (impossible?) to implement in a roleplaying game in a way that is _actually_ suspenseful, as opposed to simple play-acting.

I'm guessing, from the above, that you _do_ think it's fun to pretend that you don't know trolls regenerate.  In which case we are very unlikely to agree about this issue.  But I'm happy to keep discussing it.



> Outside of this particular scenario, how do you account for skills like Arcana, History and Investigation without being able, even in a limited fashion, to determine what a character can know, recall, intuit or reason?




Those checks are about facts you know/remember, not how you feel and think.  The distinction is clear to me, but perhaps not to others.

EDIT:

The way you'd need to model this, I think...and not that I'm advocating doing so...would require two things:
1) When somebody is on watch, you make several/many secret dice rolls against detailed tables that can produce positives, negatives, false positive, and false negatives.
2) Each time, you ask the player what they do.  
3) There is a mechanical cost to "doing something".  E.g., each time the player investigates, it could reduce the effectiveness of the rest.  If they wake everybody else up, it reduces the effectiveness of rest for everybody.

Again, I wouldn't actually do this, but those are the ingredients to achieve what you are describing in a meaningful, immersive way.  For me.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 12, 2018)

Afrodyte said:


> So, this character has few in-character reasons to go from, "You hear a rustle in the leaves" to, "It's bleeping ninjas."




I think you could prevent this issue entirely by just allowing your players to do what ever they want to do. If they as players suspect an ambush, they are more than welcome to respond accordingly, or at least investigate. After all, the DM wouldn't throw in some random rustle-sound unless it was important.



Afrodyte said:


> If the DM is flat-out forbidden from saying that this PC interprets the rustle in the leaves as raccoons or just the wind, what keeps the player from using their personal knowledge that it's probably ninjas as an in-game advantage in this situation (such as not being surprised when the ninjas strike) then claiming that it's what their character knew or thought all along?




I would say that a DM should always be allowed to say something along the lines of: "_You hear a soft rustle in the leafs. It could be some small forest animal by the sound of it._"



Afrodyte said:


> Outside of this particular scenario, how do you account for skills like Arcana, History and Investigation without being able, even in a limited fashion, to determine what a character can know, recall, intuit or reason?




I think what a character knows/recalls/reasons is always a matter of both player and DM input. Sometimes the character knows more than the player, and so the player is reliant on the DM to provide that information. Sometimes the player fills in some of the blanks themselves, without DM input. Sometimes the player simply forgets something, and needs a reminder from the DM, because it is something their character would remember.

The skills are there for when there is doubt about what the character knows/remembers/reasons.



Elfcrusher said:


> So although the rustle of leaves that gets  dismissed is a common trope in suspenseful movies, it's difficult  (impossible?) to implement in a roleplaying game in a way that is _actually_ suspenseful, as opposed to simple play-acting.




I completely disagree. I think in fact a lot of suspense can be created due to the player knowing more than their character (similar to the way the audience watching a suspense movie, often knows more than the characters in that movie). Just because you as a player suspect that the rustle is more than just a harmless forest animal, does not mean that you are required to play out your character that way. Sometimes its even a lot of fun to do the thing that everyone else at the table thinks you shouldn't be doing.

For example, I ran a Call of Cthulhu campaign in which two players were breaking into a house at night. Just as they were about to leave, they heard a sound from upstairs... they pondered whether they should investigate. But despite the rest of the players begging them not to go upstairs, of course they did! And boy was it suspenseful. Then when I surprised them with a sudden loud noise of a grandfather clock, some players nearly jumped off their seat.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I completely disagree. I think in fact a lot of suspense can be created due to the player knowing more than their character (similar to the way the audience watching a suspense movie, often knows more than the characters in that movie). Just because you as a player suspect that the rustle is more than just a harmless forest animal, does not mean that you are required to play out your character that way.* Sometimes its even a lot of fun to do the thing that everyone else at the table thinks you shouldn't be doing.*
> 
> For example, I ran a Call of Cthulhu campaign in which two players were breaking into a house at night. Just as they were about to leave, they heard a sound from upstairs... they pondered whether they should investigate. But despite the rest of the players begging them not to go upstairs, of course they did! And boy was it suspenseful. Then when I surprised them with a sudden loud noise of a grandfather clock, some players nearly jumped off their seat.




Doh!  I clicked XP before you edited!  (Just kidding...it's still a good post.)

I wholeheartedly agree with the bold part.  And I also agree in general with what you are saying, but I don't think the rustle in the leaves with the guy on watch is a good example.  If the DM broadcasts a likely imminent attack I don't find much suspense in pretending not to suspect anything: either way the players are "in suspense" waiting to find out what is about to attack them; the only difference is whether or not they are mechanically prepared.

I suppose that a DM who made a habit of dropping these kinds of hints...again with lots and lots of false positives, and a mechanical cost to reacting...could achieve some level of suspense.

EDIT: Or, if the character reacted to the rustling by venturing off into the woods without waking everybody else up it could be wonderfully suspenseful, which would be a good example of the part I bolded.  But you'd need a special kind of players, and know that as DM, for it to work.  Most players I've encountered would (unfortunately) do the mechanically optimal thing. 

So maybe I'm generalizing a little too much, and with the right chemistry the simple play-acting sort of roleplaying can lead to immersive roleplaying.  (Did I just break a forum rule by agreeing to temper my position?  Should I stay away from any conductive metal?)


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> EDIT: Or, if the character reacted to the rustling by venturing off into the woods without waking everybody else up it could be wonderfully suspenseful, which would be a good example of the part I bolded.  But you'd need a special kind of players, and know that as DM, for it to work. Most players I've encountered would (unfortunately) do the mechanically optimal thing.




You are probably correct. But I suppose that's why we're all here on these forums. To discuss things, hear different opinions, and maybe become better DM's and/or players in the process. 

A lot of this relies of course on both the type of DM and the player. You need a player that is adventurous enough to go for what creates suspense in the narrative, and you need a DM who knows how to play with the expectations of his players to establish that suspense.



Elfcrusher said:


> So maybe I'm generalizing a little too much, and with the right chemistry the simple play-acting sort of roleplaying can lead to immersive roleplaying.  (Did I just break a forum rule by agreeing to temper my position?  Should I stay away from any conductive metal?)




Haha, I think you just did.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Ok, here's a scenario to consider.  I posted this a year or two ago and some people went postal.  

In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped.  I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight.  If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC (maybe 10) you tell the player that they can tell they are being or have been lured into a trap.  Then you ask them what they do.  

If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then _no matter what they do_ they end up in the trap.  

Note that I haven't actually done this, and I'm not sure I would...I'm just theorizing.  But what I like about this is that it doesn't dictate thoughts/actions to the player: you are allowed to say/do/think whatever you want.  _But the trap is wherever you go_ if you fail, and it's someplace you don't go if you succeed.

Thoughts?


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, here's a scenario to consider.  I posted this a year or two ago and some people went postal.
> 
> In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped.  I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight.  If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC (maybe 10) you tell the player that they can tell they are being or have been lured into a trap.  Then you ask them what they do.




Ooooh, I remember this example clearly. That discussion went on for several decades I think. 




Elfcrusher said:


> If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then _no matter what they do_ they end up in the trap.
> 
> Note that I haven't actually done this, and I'm not sure I would...I'm just theorizing.  But what I like about this is that it doesn't dictate thoughts/actions to the player: you are allowed to say/do/think whatever you want.  _But the trap is wherever you go_ if you fail, and it's someplace you don't go if you succeed.
> 
> Thoughts?




I think this is a fair way to rule the situation. Some may argue that this is a case of a quantum-trapdoor, but I've never had any issue with moving the unknown to where its needed for the sake of the story.

I think your wording here is important though: "_then allow the player to roll Insight_"

So if I understand this correctly, rolling Insight is optional here, and requires player input first, otherwise the player makes no roll, and the enemy succeeds at their deception automatically.

So in what ways could this scenario play out?

Lets assume the player is distrusting of the enemy, and says: "_I don't trust this hag for a second, this is probably a trap. I look for a trapdoor!_"

In this case the player would have to roll Perception instead of Insight, to notice the trapdoor. Because its the action that the player declares, that informs the ruling of the DM.

If on the other hand the player says: "_Do I get the feeling that she's trying to lure me into a trap?_"

I would let the player make an Insight check to detect the deception.

Now if the player fails either of these checks, the DM could tell the player that despite their best efforts, the enemy played them like a fiddle, and got them exactly where she wanted them to go. She suddenly pulls a lever, and a trapdoor opens underneath the player's feet.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Yeah...I added the Insight thing since the last time I proposed this.  Definitely squares the complexity.  I should have left well-enough alone.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> My p.o.v. on this is that telling the player they hear a rustle, and then relying on them to "roleplay" not believing it is anything more than that, is not fun roleplaying.  This gets us into the weeds about "immersion" and "meta-gaming" but telling me that I hear leaves rustling but asking me to not read anything into it because I failed my perception check is the same as asking me to pretend to not know that trolls regenerate.



 They're both perfectly fair expectations in certain styles of play.  If a game is run 'above board,' all mechanics in the open, 'stakes' and situations known to all players, then it's fine.  Deception isn't handled by the DM tricking the players and the players progressively getting wise to the DM's personal style of trickery, it's handled by a check that models the cleverness of the characters' and their adversaries, and the results played out accordingly.

The reverse, keeping players in the dark and letting them make decisions based on 'role playing' their characters, doesn't necessarily even require there be mechanics 'behind the screen.'  The DM could just make everything up - the players face a series of described situations, make decisions, and face the consequences of those decisions, whether the consequences are determined by the DM in advance, by dice in the moment, or by DM whim in the moment is immaterial to the experience, since the players don't know what goes on behind the screen.    



> So although the rustle of leaves that gets dismissed is a common trope in suspenseful movies, it's difficult (impossible?) to implement in a roleplaying game in a way that is _actually_ suspenseful, as opposed to simple play-acting.



 IDK.  Where is the suspense supposed to come into it?  Before the roll or after it?  Because, if there's a success, the suspense is over.  If there's a failure, you still don't know what's going on, the character thinks nothing in particular is going on, but the player knows he failed a roll.  Then something happens, or not.  Sounds kinda like the movie, really.  The character on screen hears a noise and thinks nothing of it, but the viewer knows that the character wouldn't be on screen, and the noise wouldn't be audible to the viewer if there was nothing going on...  



> Those checks are about facts you know/remember, not how you feel and think.  The distinction is clear to me, but perhaps not to others.



 If they were just about knowledge, like retrieving data from a hard disk, they wouldn't be checks, you'd either know stuff or not.  But information is more than data.  It's bringing data into context and applying it.  Doctors don't make diagnosis simply by remember what they learned in medical school, but by thinking about it and deciding which symptoms are important - and biases creep into that process, because they're human.  That's the kind of thing that, in games, gets abstracted down to mechanical tests.



> 1) When somebody is on watch, you make several/many secret dice rolls against detailed tables that can produce positives, negatives, false positive, and false negatives.
> 2) Each time, you ask the player what they do.



 I recall D&D games back in the day being run that way.



> 3) There is a mechanical cost to "doing something".



 That might've helped, back then, encouraging something more fun that rampant continual paranoia.  



> Again, I wouldn't actually do this, but those are the ingredients to achieve what you are describing in a meaningful, immersive way.  For me.



 Sounds conflicted.



Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, so that puts us back at the "anything involving brain activity is 'thinking'..."



 When did we get away from that.  Any check that uses a mental stat is going to involve what your character is thinking and/or judgements he's making.  Any check that's at all abstracted is likely to include, or could conceivably generate visualizations of fiction that include, what your character is thinking and model judgements, even decisions, he's made.  Erasing all the mechanics that /could/ lead to that would not leave you with a lot of game.  

Puzzles, for instance, are a classic part of D&D, and you've already jettisoned them. 

The key to retaining/expanding what the game can handle without interfering in the way players imagine their characters is that transition from what the results of a resolution were, mechanically, to how you visualize it and integrate it into the narrative.  If the game leaves enough flexibility in that phase, the issue you're worried about can be avoided.  In D&D, it's mostly been an issue, what mechanics represent have generally been locked down in the rules with rules and flavor hard to tease apart.  But, in the WotC era, that's softened in different ways.  In 3.x you had the privilege, as a player, of describing your character & his gear, so you could do some 're-skinning,' with the somewhat obscure Spell Thematics, you could even change how his spells appeared.  In 4e & 5e, there's a lot more latitude.  In 4e fluff was segregated from rules text & keywords, so you were free to describe how a power worked in whatever way fit the character best.  In 5e, the DM narrates the results of all resolutions, so he has unlimited latitude to make them fit the story as he sees fit.  In other games it also varies.  Hero System, for instance, uses the concept of 'special effects' to let player define what the mechanical powers they buy for their characters actually represent, while in the superficially similar GURPS mechanics are 'reality checked' in the design phase.



Elfcrusher said:


> In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped.  I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight.  If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC you tell the player that they can tell they are being or have been lured into a trap.  Then you ask them what they do.
> If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then _no matter what they do_ they end up in the trap.
> Thoughts?



 That'd be a way to 'improvise' a deceptive action in a system that doesn't give you effects-based tools to model such things, and it'd be a fairly 'immersive' one.  The player is being fed information such that his experience will as closely as possible mirror that of the character.  He gets a sense of making choices and facing consequences, but it's false, 'illusionism' game theorists like to call it.  The 'secret roll' is a big part of keeping the illusion - any secret roll could really be checked against a DC/contested-roll/whatever, or it could just be a 'placebo' there to make the player think the Dice Gods are choosing his fate, when really the DM has slaved his destiny to the story, but, either way, Game Theorist Logic, goes, the player's 'Agency' has been compromised.

Personally, I think 'illusionism' is a fine way to run a game, especially one where the rules may not work so well all open & above board.  Older games were often run that way, without anyone going to the trouble of extensive Theorizing and jargon-invention in on-line echo chambers.  

I also think taking it above board and using effects-based rules can be a fine way of modeling the same thing.  In Hero System, for instance, a character who's especially tricky might have a heavily-limited Mind Control power they can use to influence their enemies with the special effect that he's just preternaturally deceptive, or in 4e D&D, the whole complicated contested check thing could be tossed in favor of a power that simply slides an enemy and has flavor text that suggests trickery (but could be re-skinned if a player were choosing it for his character).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> If they were just about knowledge, like retrieving data from a hard disk, they wouldn't be checks, you'd either know stuff or not.




Right.  And that's why you roll: to determine if you know it or not (or can't remember it, which amounts to the same thing.)   



> Sounds conflicted.




I don't _feel_ conflicted.  What on earth are you talking about?



> Any check that uses a mental stat is going to involve what your character is thinking and/or judgements he's making.




And by that litmus test, so is any physical action.  You can't swing a sword without thinking about it, after all.  And yet I think we can all agree there is _something_ different between swinging a sword and negotiating a price.

Perhaps the only objective distinction that would satisfy you is if I brushed up on my brain science, so that I could say "processes which take place in the cortex belong to the player; processes which take place in the cerebellum belong to the dice or the DM" or something like that.

But that would be a lot of work, and the distinction is clear to me without doing all that, and I doubt you would admit the distinction is clear to you even if I did do all that, so I don't think I'll bother.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I don't _feel_ conflicted.  What on earth are you talking about?



 You said: 







> Again, I wouldn't actually do this, but those are the ingredients to achieve what you are describing in a meaningful, immersive way. For me.



 It sounds like dealing with this distinction in the way you want ('meaningful & immersive') would be something you wouldn't actually do.  So you want it, but you don't want to do it, which sounded conflicted to me.




> And by that litmus test, so is any physical action.  You can't swing a sword without thinking about it, after all.



 If the resolution of the action is abstract enough, sure, it's going to model thinking on the part of the character beyond that done by the player, and relying on the character's imagined capabilities in that area.  A player may know nothing about swordplay, but his character, a master fencer, knows just when to feint/parry/riposte.  A game that were to model fencing down to a level of detail that the player makes all those decisions would both be unwieldy, and substitute the player's mastery of the system for the character's mastery of fencing.




> And yet I think we can all agree there is _something_ different between swinging a sword and negotiating a price.



 The risk of death, for instance, sure.  

What is not different is that both are tasks being accomplished by the character, based on the character's abilities, and opposed by the abilities of another (presumably an NPC under the DMs control, but not necessarily always).  



> Perhaps the only objective distinction that would satisfy you is if I brushed up on my brain science, so that I could say "processes which take place in the cortex belong to the player; processes which take place in the cerebellum belong to the dice or the DM" or something like that.



 I'd be surprised if D&D-style quasi-Bancian wizardry took place in the same part of the brain as swordplay or barbarian rage.  Do want to memorize spells, yourself, and recite them letter-perfect in order for your character to cast them?  



> But that would be a lot of work, and the distinction is clear to me without doing all that, and I doubt you would admit the distinction is clear to you even if I did do all that, so I don't think I'll bother.



 The distinction isn't unclear, it's just not very relevant nor is it very constructive to try to deal with.  What you want could be delivered by some sort of cyberpunk VR game.  You load your consciousness into a virtual body with the simulated physical abilities and supernatural powers of your character and have at it the virtual world controlled by your DM/AI.  It's not compatible with playing a character with different mental/social capabilities from yourself.  But if you want to play Den (or whatever name your initials would spell out) from Heavy Metal, or, well, a lot of others - 20th-century schmuck transported into a fantasy world is a sub-genre unto itself, really - a system to do that wouldn't be unfeasible, and, it would reasonably abstain from statting out or resolving knowledge, IQ, 'cleverness,' knowledge, charisma and the like, since you'll be providing all that (filtered through the lens of your GMs perceptions/judgements, of course).

The much more important distinction, IMHO, in between character abilities (imagined by the player in general, hopefully genre-appropriate terms, and modeled by the game mechanics) and player abilities (which can include system mastery, and probably don't include swordplay, spellcasting, spelunking, finding & disarming intricate pseudo-medieval traps, elven court etiquette, hiring half-orcish assassins on the mean streets of Balder's Gate,  or the like).  The player should make decisions - set goals, attempt tasks - for his character, the resolution of those actions should come down to the characters' abilities.  The player should decide to negotiate, threaten, cajole, fight or flee, the abilities of the character should be what weigh in to the resolution of that via mechanics (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, combat, or pursuit & evasion).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> You said:  It sounds like dealing with this distinction in the way you want ('meaningful & immersive') would be something you wouldn't actually do.  So you want it, but you don't want to do it, which sounded conflicted to me.




Oh, I just mean too much trouble for what it's worth, in that case.  I was just describing what it would take to achieve the result he was describing, to backpedal from saying that you _couldn't_ model it.  I didn't say it was practical.

Hiring actors to jump out of the closet in vampire masks at the right time would also be meaningful and immersive, but I'm not going to go through that trouble, either.



> The distinction isn't unclear, it's just not very relevant nor is it very constructive to try to deal with.




Aye, there's the rub.  You don't particularly like my interpretation.  I get it.  It's ok to just say, "Meh...I don't like that way of playing."  

Instead it's this unrelenting philosophical game to prove that there's no distinction between two different categories, when we both know there's a pretty clear distinction, despite the fact that we can, if we try hard enough for the purposes of being argumentative, come up with tricky edge cases in which the distinction is blurry.



> The much more important distinction, IMHO, in between character abilities (imagined by the player in general, hopefully genre-appropriate terms, and modeled by the game mechanics) and player abilities (which can include system mastery, and probably don't include swordplay, spellcasting, spelunking, finding & disarming intricate pseudo-medieval traps, elven court etiquette, hiring half-orcish assassins on the mean streets of Balder's Gate,  or the like).  The player should make decisions - set goals, attempt tasks - for his character, the resolution of those actions should come down to the characters' abilities.  The player should decide to negotiate, threaten, cajole, fight or flee, the abilities of the character should be what weigh in to the resolution of that via mechanics (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, combat, or pursuit & evasion).




Then why *ever* let the players make in-game choices?  If the DM leaves a hint of how to make a future challenge easier, do you ever let the players themselves figure out the hint?  If so, you're contradicting what you just claimed.  The player decides to solve the puzzle, through application of the mechanics vis-a-vis the character.  Right?  You should make them roll Int or Wis, and if they succeed they automatically "get" the hint, and if they fail then they're not allowed to use the information.  It's fine if they say it out loud, of course, because everybody else at the table is also playing this way, so there's no harm in giving away secrets.  "Oh, yeah, Tony, that would probably work.  But we all failed our Int checks so we're not going to make the connection that the word on the scroll is the command word for the golem."  In fact, the DM could just say, "You find the command word for the golem on the scroll.  Everybody roll to see if your character figures out that's what it is."  And it will be just as fun for everybody if they all fail the roll.

I don't think you play this way.  (And if you do then CLEARLY we are not ever going to see eye to eye on this.)

Assuming you do _sometimes_ let players use their own minds in place of their characters', then you are being inconsistent.  So, do you just wing it, based on what feels right, or do you have objective criteria for which side of the line any situation falls on?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 12, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, I just mean too much trouble for what it's worth, in that case.



 I think a lot of the Game Theorizing falls into that category once it gets to the transition from theory to application.  



> Hiring actors to jump out of the closet in vampire masks at the right time would also be meaningful and immersive, but I'm not going to go through that trouble, either.



 That reminds me:  LARPs could also get a lot closer to what you're looking for. 



> It's ok to just say, "Meh...I don't like that way of playing."



 I don't like that way of playing, and I particularly don't like it being used as a pretext to exclude large portions of the game from mechanical resolution.  I mean, seriously, if it were actually consistently applied you'd lose half the stats and more than half the skills...



> Instead it's this unrelenting philosophical game to prove that there's no distinction between two different categories



 I've acknowledged the distinction. 



> when we both know there's a pretty clear distinction, despite the fact that we can, if we try hard enough for the purposes of being argumentative, come up with tricky edge cases in which the distinction is blurry.



 I don't consider puzzles, traps, combat or perception checks or INT/WIS/CHA to be 'tricky edge cases.'



> Then why *ever* let the players make in-game choices?



 In one sense the player doesn't - he makes game choices.  Those drive the in-game ("in the fiction/narrative/game-world-reality/whatever") choices we imagine being made by the character.  Between the two are layers rules, abstraction, & visualization that can be perceived as a vanishingly thin semi-permeable membrane or a brick wall, but they're there, and they action on the other side is still driven by the player (unless there's "illusionism" going on, in which case they're driven by the DM) giving him "Agency."  



> If the DM leaves a hint of how to make a future challenge easier, do you ever let the players themselves figure out the hint?



 A DM can drop hints for the players, or for the characters.  The latter will depend on the character's noticing & understanding them.  So if there's a hint in the form of an inscription in a cryptic arcane language, that depends on a allusion to the teachings of an obscure cult to make sense of, telling the players "there was an inscription there saying #al-zprh'vr'nn atl-n'gliii et-h'ram# I can't believe you didn't pick up on that," wouldn't be at all fair, while giving them arcana checks (or letting them cast Read Lang) and religion checks to figure it out might be more productive.  
OTOH, if you describe the BBEG as looking a whole lot like a boss from a video game you know some of the players enjoy, they just might figure out what kind of attacks he's going to throw and/or be vulnerable too or something, well, that's the former, and some might object to it as meta-gaming or genre-bending.



> Assuming you do _sometimes_ let players use their own minds in place of their characters', then you are being inconsistent.  So, do you just wing it, based on what feels right, or do you have objective criteria for which side of the line any situation falls on?



Like I said, the player has control of the character, they make game decisions for it, from decisions the character could not easily be imagined to have any conceivable control over (I'll be a an elf and put the 14 in CON and the 18 in INT and dump STR) to some they certainly should, if not necessarily in the same terms (I'll use my 2nd level slot to cast Sleep on the Orcs).

IMHO, though, the player should never substitute their RL abilities for the character's imagined abilities in the guise of 'making decisions,' nor be penalized for lacking knowledge their character should have when making game decisions.  If a character doesn't have a clue how to build a fire, the player shouldn't get away with describing the actions he learned in the boy scouts to get a fire started, his character should just cope with the cold & dark.  If a player with no clue how to build a fire is playing a ranger, and says "I guess I should build a fire" not only should he be allowed to, but if the DM figures building a fire in the spot he's in would be a bad idea (start a wildfire, loosen the snow on the branches of the tree above causing a minor avalanche that douses the fire, attract undue attention) he should explain the better place to build that, because the character would know that - or call for a check if he figured the character would /probably/ think of it...

Really, it's stuff that so obvious it'd be a non-issue, if the early days of the hobby hadn't produced games that left large swaths of character abilities undefined and/or depended on 'gochya' challenges that turned on whether the player was alert to something the DM said or had encountered (or read about) a monster or trap or cursed item or what-have-you, before, and those hadn't, in turn, left such a deep impression on the community.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 13, 2018)

"Those checks are about facts you know/remember, not how you feel and think. "

Agreed... You remember this is way different from you like this or you agree to this.

As for the rustle, especiallyvif we used the succeed at cost...

"Theres another rustling over by the bonnet trees. Might be something. Might not. If you move to get closer and a better look, you will leave your post and lose clea viewbof the pier.  Do you investigate or what?"

Since we know the at cost may mean getting a higher result but losing something else, the player can see mechanically the issue of risk and reward just as the player can.

Could be nothing there and he exposes the pier.
Could be someone there and he catches or drive off.
Could be a planned distraction to open up the pier.
Could be an ambush.
Could be amorous racoons.

Like a sweet pie, you wont know until you taste it and then its too late.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Apr 13, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Note that I haven't actually done this, and I'm not sure I would...I'm just theorizing.  But what I like about this is that it doesn't dictate thoughts/actions to the player: you are allowed to say/do/think whatever you want.  _But the trap is wherever you go_ if you fail, and it's someplace you don't go if you succeed.
> 
> Thoughts?



Now you're violating causality, which is even worse than violating player agency. That players should maintain control over the thoughts and beliefs of their character is one thing, but it's just a social contract. That the world exists as an objective reality, and that your actions in the present cannot shape the past of the world, is another thing entirely.

As a player, I would much rather that the GM tell me I have lost control over my character, than to have my decisions become meaningless because the universe is literally conspiring against me.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Now you're violating causality, which is even worse than violating player agency. That players should maintain control over the thoughts and beliefs of their character is one thing, but it's just a social contract. That the world exists as an objective reality, and that your actions in the present cannot shape the past of the world, is another thing entirely.
> 
> As a player, I would much rather that the GM tell me I have lost control over my character, than to have my decisions become meaningless because the universe is literally conspiring against me.




I remember last time some people felt very strongly as you do (maybe you were even one of them.)  

And I have the exact opposite reaction: I would much rather the DM let me do what I want, and then secretly move the trap, rather than tell me I have to move one way because an NPC successfully Deceived me.  And not just because I would never know the difference: even if the DM told me afterward what he had done, I would still prefer it.

Which I guess is a sign that people play the game differently, and some of these debates will simply _never_ lead to a single answer that satisfies everybody.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, here's a scenario to consider.  I posted this a year or two ago and some people went postal.
> 
> In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped.  I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight.  If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC (maybe 10) you tell the player that they can tell they are being or have been lured into a trap.  Then you ask them what they do.
> 
> ...




I go with the far, far simpler answer of, "You believe what the NPC is saying, you are going to move to that square, go ahead and narrate it however you feel is most appropriate."

Mostly because I trust my players to actually be mature enough to role play out a situation that is entirely plausible without being asshats (oh, I heard a noise, it must be ninjas because you never mentioned a noise before).

Then again, this hard line "THOU MUST NOT TELL ME WHAT MY CHARACTER IS THINKING" is pretty far removed from my experience.


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Then again, this hard line "THOU MUST NOT TELL ME WHAT MY CHARACTER IS THINKING" is pretty far removed from my experience.




Same here. In my own roleplaying style, I fall somewhere between (warning: Forge terminology ahead) author stance and director stance, and my preferences skew strongly Narrativist, so things like immersion and absolute control over my character's behavior, thoughts and feelings is not something I require in order to enjoy myself. In fact, the loss of control in circumstances when it's meaningful and/or interesting can be fun for me when I have ample opportunity to otherwise contribute to the game.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I go with the far, far simpler answer of, "You believe what the NPC is saying, you are going to move to that square, go ahead and narrate it however you feel is most appropriate."
> 
> Mostly because I trust my players to actually be mature enough to role play out a situation that is entirely plausible without being asshats (oh, I heard a noise, it must be ninjas because you never mentioned a noise before).
> 
> Then again, this hard line "THOU MUST NOT TELL ME WHAT MY CHARACTER IS THINKING" is pretty far removed from my experience.




Ah, so now it's a mature player vs. immature player argument. Gotcha.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 13, 2018)

"If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then no matter what they do they end up in the trap. "

A lot depends on the system/table and how it defines deception.

In this case, here is how i would resolve it:

The NPC would actively be trying to get the guy onto the trap. That would be done in actuality, on the map grid, etc. If done ToM i would keep describong the trickery guy moving back, withdrawing, etc and giving the pc the choices to press attack etc. ToM the trap would be tagged to a setting piece like by the big chair as its key instead of a grid spot.

The insight deception would be a check to see if the pc catches on, if the tricker reveals his intent and the focus on the spot becomes apparent.

Pc makes check, they "see" the tricker is paying attention to the spot, perhaps even that he avoids it himself on a move. If they dont, the npc tells are missed.

Using grid, when/if they move onto the square, bam. Easy. 

ToM the insight check is rolled when the narrative gets them close to the setting pieces tagged with the trap (by the big chair), and the next time or two the pc follows around the big chair, they get bam.

Key is, its the failed insight to give the pc info that guides the sequence... Not a deception roll to compel the pc movement.

Now if a system defines deception as a form of mind control, different story.

Is this more than a semantic difference - yes in one regard. Since i leave the choice to the character, at any time the decision can be made to withdraw or maybe to use acrobatics to leap over the chair, not go around it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then no matter what they do they end up in the trap. "
> 
> A lot depends on the system/table and how it defines deception.
> 
> ...




I'd probably do something similar to that, too.  As I said, I've never actually used the "move the trap to where the PC who failed his roll goes" trick, I'm just not opposed to it.

Tony will likely disagree with your approach, though, because it's still allowing the player to make decisions that avoid the trap, even if the character rolls poorly.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Second, if the game rules allowed npcs aka gm to roll persuasion to force us to take actions thru social skills on a natural 20, essentially handing every tom dick and harry control over our players... Thats not a setting system game i would go for at the start.



This seems like another instance of (sensibly) objecting to poor mechanics.

I think it's more helpful to think about systems with effective social mechanics to discuss what such mechanics bring to the game, and also what might be some players concerns aobut them.



5ekyu said:


> Dukes persuasion...
> 
> Made roll i present a compelling case then you. You get persuasive input.
> 
> ...



I like a system which generates an experience for the player which, in some tenable sense, mirrors the experience the PC is going through. A simple example: blind action declarations in combat mirror the PC's uncertainty about what his/her opponent is going to do next.

I think it's hard to achieve this with the persuasive/non-persuasive input method. When my PC is persuaded, they want to do X. So a "mirroring" system should make me want to do X. But if I haven't myself experienced the duke's charm, then why am I going to want to do X if I'm otherwise not disposed too? To me, it seems to require more _pretending_ to be my PC, rather than "inhabiting" my PC.



Elfcrusher said:


> if dice rolls for mental/emotional actions take precedence over player thoughts/desires, how do we handle puzzles and riddles?  If the player solves a puzzle, but his character fails an Int check, does that mean he fails the puzzle?  If so, why bother to have _actual_ puzzles in the game?  Why not just describe them abstractly?



I don't use puzzles of this sort that often in RPGing. In the course of a 30-level 4e game, there were (from memory) 3 riddles. The playiers solved the rivddles.

The last puzzle I remember was in my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game. I established a scene distinction: Mysterious Sigils on the Walls. Now the PCs were - at that time - lost in the dungeon, and hence were suffering an appropriate complication. So one of the players declared "I reckon those mysterious sigils have information about where we are in the dungeon", and made a check using the Scene Distinction in his pool - the check succeeded and indeed he was able to decipher the sigils and eliminate his Lost in the Dungeon complication.

Cortex+ supports this sort of thing better than 4e - an "abstract" puzzle in 4e would just be a (pretty uninteresting) INT check; whereas in Cortex+ there is the interaction with the fiction both in building the dice pool, and in establishing what effect is being sought (eg, in this case, eliminating a complication).

But notice that the Cortex+ player himself had to do a clever thing, namely, coming up with the idea that the Sigils might be a map or guide to the dungeon. No one else in the group thought of it, so it was not an utterly obvious possibility. That sort of cleverness is pretty fundamental to RPGing, in my view - otherwise what's the point of _playing _at all?



Elfcrusher said:


> I never use puzzles.  But it's for a reason related to the principle I've been espousing: puzzle and riddle solving belongs in the domain of what the character "thinks" so you can't use dice rolls, but to not use dice rolls is also problematic.  So out they go.
> 
> But for players/DMs who _don't believe_ in the sanctity of the character's thoughts it shouldn't be a problem at all.



I don't see why not using dice rolls is problematic. There are a lot of decisions in the game that don't use dice rolls (eg, in a typical D&D game, deciding what equipment to buy for a PC; deciding whether to talk to an orc you meet, or attack it; deciding which corridor to take at a dungeon intersection; etc). I'm not sure why riddles being decided by thinking about it, rathter than rolling dice, is a problem.

I mean, it might be weird of the INT 8 brute solves the riddle; but it's also odd if the INT 8 brute is always the one who has the best advice about which corrridor to take at the intersections (because the player is a clever wargamer). Or if the CHA 8 wizard is the party leader (because the player has a powerful personality). This is just a consequence of allowing the human players of the game to play PCs whom the rules and at least the odd occasion in the fiction is presented as less clever or less persuasive than the player is.

(There can be other problems of course: riddles can suck if the players spend an hour on it and can't solve it! Luckily at least two of the riddles I used were solved pretty quickly. I can't remember the first one well enough, though I do think it came closer to the sort of suckitude I just described.)



Elfcrusher said:


> In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped.  I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight.  If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC (maybe 10) you tell the player that they can tell they are being or have been lured into a trap.  Then you ask them what they do.
> 
> If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then _no matter what they do_ they end up in the trap.
> 
> Note that I haven't actually done this, and I'm not sure I would...I'm just theorizing.  But what I like about this is that it doesn't dictate thoughts/actions to the player: you are allowed to say/do/think whatever you want.  _But the trap is wherever you go_ if you fail, and it's someplace you don't go if you succeed.





Tony Vargas said:


> That'd be a way to 'improvise' a deceptive action in a system that doesn't give you effects-based tools to model such things, and it'd be a fairly 'immersive' one.  The player is being fed information such that his experience will as closely as possible mirror that of the character.  He gets a sense of making choices and facing consequences, but it's false, 'illusionism' game theorists like to call it.  The 'secret roll' is a big part of keeping the illusion - any secret roll could really be checked against a DC/contested-roll/whatever, or it could just be a 'placebo' there to make the player think the Dice Gods are choosing his fate, when really the DM has slaved his destiny to the story, but, either way, Game Theorist Logic, goes, the player's 'Agency' has been compromised.



There's only one "game theoretic" notion of "illusionism", namely, The Forge's. And in that usage, it's not illusionism if the player gets to make a check (eg Insight) and success on that check would have changed the outcome.

In 4e, the "trickster" ability would, as a matter of mechanical convention, be more likely to involve an attack vs Will; but otherwise could play out the way described - if the attack succeeds (or, in a departure from convention, the Insight check fails) then the PC falls prone (or whatever) which - in the fiction - corresponds to having been lured into a trap.

As best I can recall I've never used a monster/NPC with this exactly ability; the closest I've come is a pact hag. And the closet I've come to doing what Elfcrusher describes is the following:

The PCs were in rather tense negotiations with the pact hag and friends. Mechanically, this was being resolved as a skill challenge.
The player of the dwarf fighter failed a check (Insight? I can't remember now, more than 5 years later.) I narrated the result - manipulated by the hag, the PC moves across the room, and then the hag pulls the rope and a pit opens beneath the dwarf's feet, dropping him into tunnels below.

When I've posted that example of play in the past, many posters have responded that it was a railroad. I personally don't see how - it's just the narration of adverse consequences for a failed check.

There are two or three reasons I didn't do it exactly as Elfcrusher describes:

(1) 4e likes maps, and so I had maps, and to make my tunnel map and my upper floor map line up, the pit has to be in a particular place;

(2) But 4e only likes maps in combat, and this was a skill challenge, so we weren't bothering with the maps at that point except perhaps in general terms ("you're near the doorway, the woman you're talking to is on the other side of the room") and so there was no sense in which the player might have indicated a movement to a square where I would then place the trapdoor;

(3) In real life people walk around when talking, and it is not too hard to manipuate them into going to place X or place Y (stage magicians depend in part upon being able to manipulate people in these sorts of ways) - but when resolving a conversation while everyone is sitting around at the table, it is trivially easy for a player to just have his/her PC stand still regardless of what the NPC interlocutor is saying/doing. So to have the manipulation actually work, I included as a component of the failure narration that the PC took some steps across the room.​
I think it's obvious, also, that there's not the least illusionism in the example I've described: the player makes a check, sees it fail, and knows exactly why the adverse consequence is being narrated by me as GM. It's just action resolution and result thereof.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 13, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I like a system which generates an experience for the player which, in some tenable sense, mirrors the experience the PC is going through. A simple example: blind action declarations in combat mirror the PC's uncertainty about what his/her opponent is going to do next.



 *bleck*  Sorry, just personal distaste for that kind of thing.  



> I'm not sure why riddles being decided by thinking about it, rathter than rolling dice, is a problem.



 Dice aren't the critical issue, it's the ability of the character to solve puzzles.  If you're playing the Riddle Master of Hed, but you personally suck at solving riddles, especially your DM's idea of what's an "obvious" riddle, it's not going to go well for you if your character's ability can't be modeled by the system, and it depends on the DM making up riddles & you solving them, instead.  It's like telling a player in a wheelchair that they can't play a character who can walk.



> There's only one "game theoretic" notion of "illusionism", namely, The Forge's. And in that usage, it's not illusionism if the player gets to make a check (eg Insight) and success on that check would have changed the outcome.



 In this instance, success/failure is hidden from the player, and he is asked to make a decision, the decision makes no difference, that sounds like illusionism.  It also sounds like 'immersion' the way it's often used.



> In 4e, the "trickster" ability would, as a matter of mechanical convention, be more likely to involve an attack vs Will; but otherwise could play out the way described - if the attack succeeds (or, in a departure from convention, the Insight check fails) then the PC falls prone (or whatever) which - in the fiction - corresponds to having been lured into a trap.



 It could even have been a power that slid the victim into a square that had already been determined to contain a trap (and may even have been marked as such on the map), if the PC knew about the trap, he'd also have gotten a save to fall prone adjacent to it, instead, to avoid it.  The difference it all that would be open and above-board, no hiding the success/failure.



> The PCs were in rather tense negotiations with the pact hag and friends. Mechanically, this was being resolved as a skill challenge.
> The player of the dwarf fighter failed a check (Insight? I can't remember now, more than 5 years later.) I narrated the result - manipulated by the hag, the PC moves across the room, and then the hag pulls the rope and a pit opens beneath the dwarf's feet, dropping him into tunnels below.
> 
> When I've posted that example of play in the past, many posters have responded that it was a railroad. I personally don't see how - it's just the narration of adverse consequences for a failed check.



 The difference, there, is there was that the player knew the roll was failed and you simply narrated the consequence, vs being told after a hidden opposed check "you think somethings up with the hag, like she's trying to trick you, what do you do" and then whatever he did, *poof* there was a trap there.  "I stay right in my seat." *poof* the floor drops out from under you chair.  "I get up and leave the room *poof*" the floor under the doorway opens up.   "I use my potion of levitation to float in the middle of the room" *poof* the roof opens up and a whirlwind pulls you up through it because you're weightless!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The difference, there, is there was that the player knew the roll was failed and you simply narrated the consequence, vs being told after a hidden opposed check "you think somethings up with the hag, like she's trying to trick you, what do you do" and then whatever he did, *poof* there was a trap there.  "I stay right in my seat." *poof* the floor drops out from under you chair.  "I get up and leave the room *poof*" the floor under the doorway opens up.   "I use my potion of levitation to float in the middle of the room" *poof* the roof opens up and a whirlwind pulls you up through it because you're weightless!



Is anyone in this thread advocating what you describe here? That just seems like bad RPGing.

I'm not against all hard framing, but I don't see what having the player roll dice adds!



Tony Vargas said:


> Dice aren't the critical issue, it's the ability of the character to solve puzzles.  If you're playing the Riddle Master of Hed, but you personally suck at solving riddles, especially your DM's idea of what's an "obvious" riddle, it's not going to go well for you if your character's ability can't be modeled by the system, and it depends on the DM making up riddles & you solving them, instead.



If someone wants to play a riddle master whose riddle-solving ability takes the form of making INT checks (or whatever) then I've got nothing againts that, although personally I don't think I'd care for it - the narrative progressions in solving a riddle aren't the sort of thing that easily lend themselves to narration in (say) a skill challenge format.

But there is always going to be some domain in which the issue can occur. I can play a warlord who, in the fiction, is the greatest tactician of all time, but I might still suck at knowing when to use my powers! And so my warlord won't play as quite the tactical genius the fiction wants him/her to be. _Action declaration_ is fundamental to RPGing, which means that there's always the prospect of being more or less effective, as a player of the game, than might seem appropriate given the PCs' notional in-fiction capabilities.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 13, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Is anyone in this thread advocating what you describe here? That just seems like bad RPGing.



 He may not have been advocating it, but, that was comparable to the method Elfcrusher outlined.  There is a secret roll (or DC), if the player beats a lower, arbitrary DC, he's told something up and asked to make a decision, the decision has no impact on the result, which is determined by the secret roll (or, I added, just as easily by the DM, arbitrarily, it makes no difference to the player's experience, either way).

And, no, it's not bad RPGing, it's just a different, really rather common/classic style.  I guess I'll advocate for it, as I have for 'illusionism' in the past.  It's a legitimate way to run a game, to get behind the screen and use misdirection to provide a great, even 'immersive,' play experience, like a stage magician entertaining his audience with 'illusions.'



> I'm not against all hard framing, but I don't see what having the player roll dice adds!



 It adds a sense of fair play, tension, fate, etc.  In Elfscrusher's example, it actually determines the result, but that fact is hidden from the player, who is instead allowed to believe that had he made a correct choice he could have avoided the trap.



> If someone wants to play a riddle master whose riddle-solving ability takes the form of making INT checks (or whatever) then I've got nothing againts that, although personally I don't think I'd care for it - the narrative progressions in solving a riddle aren't the sort of thing that easily lend themselves to narration in (say) a skill challenge format.



 Coming up with good riddles is not always easy, and gauging the difficulty of a riddle is really iffy.  A player can be befuddled by something you think is simple, or blurt out the answer to something you thought would be hard before you even finish it - and it in no way reflects the character.  

Even if you do run a riddle in a skill challenge or similar format that takes several cycles of checks, it's not going to add a lot to the experience if you leave it completely abstract.  To really make it work, you'd have to come up with a genuinely good riddle or puzzle that can be solved incrementally, so you can see progress, successive checks fill in more of the picture, the players may or may not figure it out before it's completed, so either there's some level of tension to see if the characters will figure it out, or to see what the correct solution is.  So, really, much like watching characters in a story trying to solve a puzzle.  



> But there is always going to be some domain in which the issue can occur. I can play a warlord who, in the fiction, is the greatest tactician of all time, but I might still suck at knowing when to use my powers!



 Nod.  But, at least when he does use a power, it displays an effect consistent with the concept.  You can be a great tactician, but fight for the wrong side or choose the wrong battle for an emotional reason or because of a personal blindspot, tragic flaw, or whatever.   



> _Action declaration_ is fundamental to RPGing, which means that there's always the prospect of being more or less effective, as a player of the game, than might seem appropriate given the PCs' notional in-fiction capabilities.



 If the game is done well, the in-fiction capabilities shouldn't be compromised by player system mastery/player-skill or lack thereof.  The PC may succeed or fail (to the victory conditions of the game) based on game-play decisions made by the player, but he'll succeed or fail in character, and modeled true to concept.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> He may not have been advocating it, but, that was comparable to the method Elfcrusher outlined.  There is a secret roll (or DC), if the player beats a lower, arbitrary DC, he's told something up and asked to make a decision, the decision has no impact on the result, which is determined by the secret roll (or, I added, just as easily by the DM, arbitrarily, it makes no difference to the player's experience, either way).




If I were actually implementing this, if the player did nothing and stood still (or levitated or whatever) I wouldn't find some way to spring the trap anyway, because I don't mind having player decisions supersede failed skill checks.  

On the contrary, the style of play you are advocating leads me to conclude that you are mocking ("poof") the same outcomes you espouse.  Because if the player fails the Insight/Deception contest he _must_ do whatever the NPC is trying to make him do, right?  So even if the player says, "Hmmm...something is up, I think I will cast 'Levitate'" your response would have to be, "That's you speaking, not your character, so it doesn't get you out of the consequences of the failed skill check."  You either have to disallow the Levitate, or have the player levitate into the trap.  (Foresightful NPC, that one!)

Then again, you conclude with this:


> If the game is done well, the in-fiction capabilities shouldn't be compromised by player system mastery/player-skill or lack thereof. The PC may succeed or fail (to the victory conditions of the game) based on game-play decisions made by the player, but he'll succeed or fail in character, and modeled true to concept.





Which seems to be a contradiction of the hard line you were taking against my viewpoint about agency.  So I have no idea what you believe.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 13, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> If I were actually implementing this, if the player did nothing and stood still (or levitated or whatever) I wouldn't find some way to spring the trap anyway,



 The example you gave: 







Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, here's a scenario to consider.  I posted this a year or two ago and some people went postal.
> 
> In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped.  I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight.  If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC (maybe 10) you tell the player that they can tell they are being *or have been lured* into a trap.  Then you ask them what they do.
> 
> ...



 particularly the bolded bit, gave me the impression that standing still would also leave you trapped.



Elfcrusher said:


> On the contrary, the style of play you are advocating leads me to conclude that you are mocking ("poof") the same outcomes you espouse.



 I was mocking the Forge presentation of 'Illusionism' as necessarily a bad technique.  

I think it's a fine technique for certain styles and a workable - even ideal - approach in certain systems.


> Which seems to be a contradiction of the hard line you were taking against my viewpoint about agency.  So I have no idea what you believe.



It's not a hard line about your viewpoint (though I don't find it compelling or consistent), so much as about how your viewpoint should be handled.  The example you posed is a good one, it illustrates how a system & GM can deal with such a viewpoint without preemptively excluding swaths of characters (determinedly uncooperative loners, fearless warriors, edgy emo types, reluctant heroes, etc), foes (manipulative trickster types), classes (Warlord! You knew it was coming!), and challenges (Traps, Puzzles, Riddles, etc) from the campaign.



> because I don't mind having player decisions supersede failed skill checks.



 That, OTOH, I don't find a great policy:  it encourages players to get all argumentative & whiny in the hopes of overturning results when die rolls don't go their way.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That, OTOH, I don't find a great policy:  it encourages players to get all argumentative & whiny in the hopes of overturning results when die rolls don't go their way.




Yes, it requires...(drumroll)...mature players.

Doh!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 13, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yes, it requires...(drumroll)...mature players.
> 
> Doh!



I was already assuming players who share your attitude towards being 'told' by the mechanics what their characters think/feel/do, though, so objecting to the results of dice rolls and taking actions notwithstanding those results is on the table.  
Thus, "illusionism" and keeping some of the rolls behind the screen.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I was already assuming players who share your attitude towards being 'told' by the mechanics what their characters think/feel/do, though.




That was more for Hussar's sake.

Yes, it does work best if the players are mature enough to engage in the fiction in meaningful ways, and don't use the sanctity of the PC's thoughts to be disruptive.

It does make sense to me that if you can't rely on players to roleplay cooperatively, you might have to limit their agency and bind them to dice rolls more often.  So my approach won't work for all tables.  I'll grant you that.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I like a system which generates an experience for the player which, in some tenable sense, mirrors the experience the PC is going through. A simple example: blind action declarations in combat mirror the PC's uncertainty about what his/her opponent is going to do next.
> 
> I think it's hard to achieve this with the persuasive/non-persuasive input method. When my PC is persuaded, they want to do X. So a "mirroring" system should make me want to do X. But if I haven't myself experienced the duke's charm, then why am I going to want to do X if I'm otherwise not disposed too? To me, it seems to require more _pretending_ to be my PC, rather than "inhabiting" my PC.




By the way, I forgot to quote this and say, "Yes.  Exactly."

I'm not by any stretch claiming this as One True Way gaming, and I certainly sit at tables with many people who play otherwise (I do have this strange attraction to playing A.L....), but this is how _I_ like to play.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 13, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> That was more for Hussar's sake.



 Oh, this:


Hussar said:


> I go with the far, far simpler answer of, "You believe what the NPC is saying, you are going to move to that square, go ahead and narrate it however you feel is most appropriate."
> 
> Mostly because *I trust my players to actually be mature enough* to role play out a situation that is entirely plausible without being asshats (oh, I heard a noise, it must be ninjas because you never mentioned a noise before).
> 
> Then again, this hard line "THOU MUST NOT TELL ME WHAT MY CHARACTER IS THINKING" is pretty far removed from my experience.






Elfcrusher said:


> Yes, *it does work best if the players are mature enough* to engage in the fiction in meaningful ways, and don't use the sanctity of the PC's thoughts to be disruptive.
> 
> It does make sense to me that if you can't rely on players to roleplay cooperatively, you might have to limit their agency and bind them to dice rolls more often.  So my approach won't work for all tables.  I'll grant you that.



  So you're both waving 'maturity' around as a way of discrediting the other's opinion, in a conversation about, essentially, how to play 'let's pretend?'


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> So you're both waving 'maturity' around as a way of discrediting the other's opinion, in a conversation about, essentially, how to play 'let's pretend?'




I would have hoped it would be obvious that I was just facetiously turning the tables on a silly rhetorical technique, to demonstrate that it is indeed silly.

No, Tony, I don't _really_ think you have immature players, and thus need to bind them to the dice.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 13, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I would have hoped it would be obvious that I was just facetiously turning the tables on a silly rhetorical technique, to demonstrate that it is indeed silly.



 Nothing is as obvious, once posted on a forum, as might reasonably be hoped in any other medium...

...for instance, in this case, you could've quoted him....



Elfcrusher said:


> No, Tony, I don't _really_ think you have immature players, and thus need to bind them to the dice.



 Actually, I've run for all kinds (but, yeah, for purposes of posting in public under my own name, no, none of my current players are 'immature').  
And the solution in the above case isn't to 'bind them to the dice,' it's quite the opposite, to insulate them from the mechanics by, among other things, taking the dice behind the screen.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> /snip
> 
> because I don't mind having player decisions supersede failed skill checks.
> /snip




I think this, more than anything else, illustrates the difference in play styles here.  (Gimme a sec, I'll address that "maturity" thing a bit down page)  But, for me, once the dice hit the table, that's the agreed upon outcome.  There is no "superseding" any die rolls if it can possibly be avoided.  The dice are telling me, and the table, what is happening in the game world.  Dice first.  

In the same way that I wouldn't supersede an attack roll or a saving throw, I won't supersede skill checks either.  So, for me, and my table, the die roll dictates your narration, not the other way around.  



Elfcrusher said:


> That was more for Hussar's sake.
> 
> Yes, it does work best if the players are mature enough to engage in the fiction in meaningful ways, and don't use the sanctity of the PC's thoughts to be disruptive.
> 
> It does make sense to me that if you can't rely on players to roleplay cooperatively, you might have to limit their agency and bind them to dice rolls more often.  So my approach won't work for all tables.  I'll grant you that.




Heh, yeah.  Sorry about that.  That was rather unfortunate phrasing my part.  I was specifically thinking of problem players that I've had in the past that have espoused pretty much exactly what you're saying.  Players who use the "sanctity of PC's thoughts to be disruptive" when I made that "immature" crack.  It is something I've seen on more than one occasion, so, maybe that's why I'm equating it with immaturity.  My bad.  I'm projecting my experiences.  Sorry.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> In the same way that I wouldn't supersede an attack roll or a saving throw, I won't supersede skill checks either.  So, for me, and my table, the die roll dictates your narration, not the other way around.



 Is this one of those 'fortune in the middle' things? (I still don't quite grok that one.)

Seems to me that the die roll (or other mechanical resolution) determines a game-mechanic result, like hps deducted from a creature's total, or a lock opening, or a trap going off, or a spell taking effect, or whatever.  In some games, that may (or may not) leave you a lot of latitude in how you narrate it.  



> I was specifically thinking of problem players that I've had in the past that have espoused pretty much exactly what you're saying.  Players who use the "sanctity of PC's thoughts to be disruptive" ... It is something I've seen on more than one occasion...



 Nor are you alone in that unfortunate experience.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I think this, more than anything else, illustrates the difference in play styles here.  (Gimme a sec, I'll address that "maturity" thing a bit down page)  But, for me, once the dice hit the table, that's the agreed upon outcome.  There is no "superseding" any die rolls if it can possibly be avoided.  The dice are telling me, and the table, what is happening in the game world.  Dice first.
> 
> In the same way that I wouldn't supersede an attack roll or a saving throw, I won't supersede skill checks either.  So, for me, and my table, the die roll dictates your narration, not the other way around.




I probably shouldn't have described anything as "superseding" the die roll, because I really don't mean negating an undesirable result with some RP.  I, too, heartily believe in "Roll then narrate."  I don't think that contradicts anything I'm saying.

If the Duke rolls a fantastic Persuasion check, that's great.  The DM can (try to) act this out, and/or simply tell the players that he's very earnest/persuasive/believable/etc.  Then let the players respond however they wish.  Hopefully they won't just ignore that cue, but they should be allowed to narrate the impact that persuasive speech has on them.

And the reverse is also true: if the players want to persuade the Duke of something, roll away to determine how persuasive they are.  The DM may wish to be a neutral arbiter and set a specific DC for success, or can just factor the strength of the roll into the Duke's response.  

In fact, just as a straw man to bat around, to see how well it holds up, imagine players doing the same thing: "If the Duke can roll a 25+ I'll rescue his annoying daughter."  I've never done that one, either, but if I did do that I would happily abide by the result.  Effectively, what I would be declaring is not how strong my willpower is, but how strong my initial opposition is, and thus how persuasive the Duke will have to be to win me over.   For the DM to set the DC is for the DM to dictate how opposed my character is.

On the rustle/ninja thing, again it's not that I worry the players will take advantage of the meta-game knowledge to mechanically prepare for the fight, it's that "You hear a rustle, but you think it's probably just a squirrel." has three problems:
1) It's telling me what my character thinks
2) It's not a very interesting roleplaying cue
3) I now strongly suspect we are getting attacked but I'm supposed to play along and not do anything with that knowledge, which means my character and I are (unnecessarily) in different states of mind.

Note: The #3 two-states-of-mind thing is fine when there are other people at the table for whom you are playing along.  For example, the canonical trolls/fire situation: I would play dumb if there's a new player at the table who knows nothing about trolls.  I'd even exaggerate my panic, to help put the new player in the same state of mind as his character.  But if we were all veterans I don't really see the value/point in doing that.



> Heh, yeah.  Sorry about that.  That was rather unfortunate phrasing my part.  I was specifically thinking of problem players that I've had in the past that have espoused pretty much exactly what you're saying.  Players who use the "sanctity of PC's thoughts to be disruptive" when I made that "immature" crack.  It is something I've seen on more than one occasion, so, maybe that's why I'm equating it with immaturity.  My bad.  I'm projecting my experiences.  Sorry.




Fair enough.  Sorry that I got snarky back.

I think we've all dealt with immature/disruptive players, who find endless ways to weave their chaos.  I don't think "helps protect against immaturity" should be a criterion for rules adoption.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> If the game is done well, the in-fiction capabilities shouldn't be compromised by player system mastery/player-skill or lack thereof.  The PC may succeed or fail (to the victory conditions of the game) based on game-play decisions made by the player, but he'll succeed or fail in character, and modeled true to concept.



I'm not talking about system mastery - I'm just talking about play (which in some systems includes mastery; but not all).

Even in a simple game, a player might forget an element of his/her PC. (Eg in the published example of play for MHRP, Shadowcat's player forgets to use an ability that could have helped Cyclops avoid havig his visor ripped off. It's the only example of play I know of which actually has a player noting that s/he misplayed!)

In D&D, which isn't simple, I think the chance of the sort of gap I describe opens up quite a bit. In my experience, it's quite common to come across 18 INT magic-users whose choices around spell selection and spell casting are fairly weak, because casual players don't have a good sense of how to choose spells and when to cast them.



Tony Vargas said:


> There is a secret roll (or DC), if the player beats a lower, arbitrary DC, he's told something up and asked to make a decision, the decision has no impact on the result, which is determined by the secret roll (or, I added, just as easily by the DM, arbitrarily, it makes no difference to the player's experience, either way).



The illusionism here is fairly light - the real action was the roll, and the choice about where to move is really just adding a bit of colour. It seems to me that the GM could certainly tell the player of the trick as soon as it is pulled without puncturing the mood.



Tony Vargas said:


> It adds a sense of fair play, tension, fate, etc.  In Elfscrusher's example, it actually determines the result, but that fact is hidden from the player, who is instead allowed to believe that had he made a correct choice he could have avoided the trap.



Well, what the player believes will depend upon what s/he takes the meaning of the check to be! As I said, I don't think it spoils the GM's trick to reveal that the movement choice was just colour.

If the die roll doesn't actually matter, _and_ the choice about movement doesn't matter, then it is illusionism (or participationism if the player knows the GM is a master manipulator).



Tony Vargas said:


> And, no, it's not bad RPGing, it's just a different, really rather common/classic style.  I guess I'll advocate for it, as I have for 'illusionism' in the past.  It's a legitimate way to run a game, to get behind the screen and use misdirection to provide a great, even 'immersive,' play experience, like a stage magician entertaining his audience with 'illusions.'



If the players know what's going on and are playing along - most of my CoC experience has been like this - then it is like stage magic. (And The Forge calls it "participationism", not "illusionism", and doesn't regard it as dysfunctional contrary to what you've posted - see eg Ron Edwards here.)

If the players in fact believe that their checks and action declarations matter and so the GM is not just "weaving his/her magic" but actually _lying_, then I think it is dysfunctionality waiting to happen. Stage magicians don't have to lie (contrast Uri Geller); movie makers don't have to lie (contrast people who fake films and photos of UFOs and fairies); GMs who want to run games like this shouldn't need to lie either, should they?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 14, 2018)

pemerton said:


> ( in the published example of play for MHRP, Shadowcat's player forgets to use an ability that could have helped Cyclops avoid havig his visor ripped off. It's the only example of play I know of which actually has a player noting that s/he misplayed!)



 That sounds fine, the character didn't lose the ability or have it fail to function as intended, and the other character's ability (and limitation), was also correctly displayed.  In that particular genre, it's not even odd. 




> The illusionism here is fairly light - the real action was the roll, and the choice about where to move is really just adding a bit of colour.



 The idea was a pretty interesting one, because of the two DCs. The lower DC gave the player information, a hint - that the enemy was up to something - as far as the player could tell, that was it, he then decided what to do, and would naturally attribute the consequences to that choice, but it's actually based on the higher DC.



> GMs who want to run games like this shouldn't need to lie either, should they?



 DMs in this style routinely withhold information - it's the main point of the classic DM Screen - not just about what's around the next dark corner,  but about what the rolls they call for or make behind the screen are about, even what the rules may actually say.   It's just the conventions of the style, like the magician having control of the stage and not explaining how he does the tricks.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2018)

I guess I don’t really see the distinction between the player setting the DC and the game doing the same. After all, isn’t that what opposed checks do?  Set the DC?

So if it’s okay for the player to set a dc, why can’t the rules do the same?  

And your third point about there being a disparity between the player and the character, to me that’s the point of role play. I’m not my character. I’m trying to experience the fiction through the lens of that character. So if the character believes X then I should do my best to portray that belief.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I understand (and agree with) the narrative goal, but not how that bears on this discussion or how it would unfold mechanically.  Do you mean the character sneaking and an NPC failing to detect him, or an NPC sneaking around and a character failing to detect him?  Is this pure narrative frosting, or an actual mechanic? (The difference between, "Nope, you don't hear anything but the wind" and "The guard stops and listens, but then you hear him mutter something about raccoons.")



Seems to me like an attempt to make these things (in this case Perception) work more like a sliding scale rather than a binary pass-fail, with rolls in the range of [just above/right on/just below] the DC giving uncertain results, which - if true - is a great way of doing it.

So if the DC is 12 a roll of maybe 9 or less would give a clear fail, a roll of maybe 15 or better would give a clear success, but anything in that 10-14 range would be narrated as an uncertain or not-sure result.  And in the example it would work the same whether it's the PC sneaking or an NPC sneaking - a roll right around the DC is going to give an uncertain result.

Lanefan


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I guess I don’t really see the distinction between the player setting the DC and the game doing the same. After all, isn’t that what opposed checks do?  Set the DC?
> 
> So if it’s okay for the player to set a dc, why can’t the rules do the same?
> 
> And your third point about there being a disparity between the player and the character, to me that’s the point of role play. I’m not my character. I’m trying to experience the fiction through the lens of that character. So if the character believes X then I should do my best to portray that belief.




Upthread there was some mention of how high of a Diplomacy check would be required to move somebody from Hostile to Minion, or something like that.  (If that was D&D, I skipped that edition...).   So the implication is that based on starting attitude, a higher or lower roll would be needed to move somebody to a new attitude.

If the DM, or the game, sets the DC for the Duke persuading me to take his offer, it is effectively telling me how initially opposed I am to the offer.  If I choose my own DC, I am choosing how initially opposed I am.  It seems to me the player should be in control of that initial state.

And, again, there is the maturity requirement: a player who always chose DC 50 is not being cooperative.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Seems to me like an attempt to make these things (in this case Perception) work more like a sliding scale rather than a binary pass-fail, with rolls in the range of [just above/right on/just below] the DC giving uncertain results, which - if true - is a great way of doing it.
> 
> So if the DC is 12 a roll of maybe 9 or less would give a clear fail, a roll of maybe 15 or better would give a clear success, but anything in that 10-14 range would be narrated as an uncertain or not-sure result.  And in the example it would work the same whether it's the PC sneaking or an NPC sneaking - a roll right around the DC is going to give an uncertain result.
> 
> Lanefan




Yes, I agree with this in theory, but to also maintain immersion it gets very complicated, perhaps impractically so.  Elsewhere (very briefly in this thread, more extensively a year ago or so) I've written about the need for the mechanics to support positives, negatives, false positives, and false negatives in order for "detection" (stealth, traps, lies, etc.) to function in a meaningfully immersive way, by which I mean the player genuinely feels some mix of certainty/uncertainty; never (or very rarely) an absolute.

Of course, if you don't care about this type of immersion, which [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] nicely summarized above, then it's all a lot simpler.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Upthread there was some mention of how high of a Diplomacy check would be required to move somebody from Hostile to Minion, or something like that.  (If that was D&D, I skipped that edition...).   So the implication is that based on starting attitude, a higher or lower roll would be needed to move somebody to a new attitude.
> 
> If the DM, or the game, sets the DC for the Duke persuading me to take his offer, it is effectively telling me how initially opposed I am to the offer.  If I choose my own DC, I am choosing how initially opposed I am.  It seems to me the player should be in control of that initial state.
> 
> And, again, there is the maturity requirement: a player who always chose DC 50 is not being cooperative.




Fair enough but, by far the same token, that’s precisely how deception works in the game. Your “disbelief” dc is set by your Insight skill. Whatever you the player might think, your character believes the lie if you fail to beat the opposed check. 

And for persuasion it could easily be an opposed check. Your wisdom vs persuasion or something like that. The mechanics are there already. 

I can kinda see the issue of the dm setting the dc. But opposed checks certainly fill that need.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough but, by far the same token, that’s precisely how deception works in the game. Your “disbelief” dc is set by your Insight skill. Whatever you the player might think, your character believes the lie if you fail to beat the opposed check.
> 
> And for persuasion it could easily be an opposed check. Your wisdom vs persuasion or something like that. The mechanics are there already.
> 
> I can kinda see the issue of the dm setting the dc. But opposed checks certainly fill that need.




Opposed checks don't take into account the initial belief state, though.  To use the character's Wisdom vs. the NPC's persuasion assumes that the character always starts with the same degree of opposition.

Imagine that an NPC is trying to persuade a PC of 5 different things, ranging from the trivial ("No, please, you go first...") to the outrageous ("Become my vassal....").  If it's Persuasion vs. Wisdom then it's the exact same probability for each.  Which seems...undesirable.

The DM could assign varying modifiers to each.  But if that's the solution, why not let the player decide where his/her character stands on each question?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> If the DM, or the game, sets the DC for the Duke persuading me to take his offer, it is effectively telling me how initially opposed I am to the offer.  If I choose my own DC, I am choosing how initially opposed I am.  It seems to me the player should be in control of that initial state.
> 
> And, again, there is the maturity requirement: a player who always chose DC 50 is not being cooperative.



My starting point for thinking about this is _what resources does the player have to spend_, to reflect his/her PC's resolve? This is somewhat analogous to setting a DC, but you can't _always_ set it at 50 if your player-side resources are finite.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Upthread there was some mention of how high of a Diplomacy check would be required to move somebody from Hostile to Minion, or something like that.  (If that was D&D, I skipped that edition...).



 D&D 3.x, it was the basis of the notorious Diplomancer build.  



> If the DM, or the game, sets the DC for the Duke persuading me to take his offer, it is effectively telling me how initially opposed I am to the offer.  If I choose my own DC, I am choosing how initially opposed I am.  It seems to me the player should be in control of that initial state.



 Sure, in 3.5e you could simply be a real surly guy and always choose hostile.  The game would set the DC based on that.  And the Diplomancer would hit it.

But it still just changed attitudes, it wasn't actually 'persuasion.'





Hussar said:


> I guess I don’t really see the distinction between the player setting the DC and the game doing the same. After all, isn’t that what opposed checks do?  Set the DC?



 Opposed checks set s DC randomly, giving overly swing results*.  Fixed DCs make useful targets for system masters to optimize to.


> So if it’s okay for the player to set a dc, why can’t the rules do the same?



 Obviously, in this context, someone might feel setting the DC is giving the player agency?



> And your third point about there being a disparity between the player and the character, to me that’s the point of role play. I’m not my character. I’m trying to experience the fiction through the lens of that character. So if the character believes X then I should do my best to portray that belief.



 Sounds reasonable.





* aside:  in the context of d20, and especially 5e BA, I think opposed checks are a bad mechanic and simply shouldn't ever be used...


----------



## Scott Christian (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Upthread there was some mention of how high of a Diplomacy check would be required to move somebody from Hostile to Minion, or something like that.  (If that was D&D, I skipped that edition...).   So the implication is that based on starting attitude, a higher or lower roll would be needed to move somebody to a new attitude.
> 
> If the DM, or the game, sets the DC for the Duke persuading me to take his offer, it is effectively telling me how initially opposed I am to the offer.  If I choose my own DC, I am choosing how initially opposed I am.  It seems to me the player should be in control of that initial state.
> 
> And, again, there is the maturity requirement: a player who always chose DC 50 is not being cooperative.




I really feel like it is more dependent on the path leading to diplomacy or persuasion.  An aggressive style works against some, others it doesn't.  Same with flirting, flattery, or being subservient. DC's set by those seem more practical than a sliding scale, and imo, leads to more role playing.


----------



## Scott Christian (Apr 14, 2018)

As to the original post, doesn't really only depend on time.  A player in a group of three that's out for four rounds, goes by rather quickly.  Put eight players at the table and make them a higher level, and it's an hour before they get to do anything.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> And your third point about there being a disparity between the player and the character, to me that’s the point of role play. I’m not my character. I’m trying to experience the fiction through the lens of that character. So if the character believes X then I should do my best to portray that belief.




Yup, I think this is the core of the disagreement.  There are really (at least) two different approaches to roleplaying here (and there is a better than even chance that my first attempt to define these is going to be seriously flawed):

1) Outward portrayal of a fictional character: this is analogous to an actor trying to portray a character that the writer/director define.  This might involve trying to induce in oneself the emotions of the character, in order to make the portrayal more realistic.

2) Inward empathy with a fictional character: this is analogous to watching a movie or reading a book, and feeling scared/happy/angry/confused when a character does.  It's not the result of trying to feel that way, it happens because you self-identify with the character and the fiction is immersive.

I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive, but they are different, and I suspect few players prioritize both equally.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 14, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My starting point for thinking about this is _what resources does the player have to spend_, to reflect his/her PC's resolve? This is somewhat analogous to setting a DC, but you can't _always_ set it at 50 if your player-side resources are finite.




I don't hate this idea, but the issue with a "resource" is...well, the same as basing martial abilities on resources.  It may make sense for game balance, but it becomes hard to explain without making it supernatural.

I'd rather see some kind of trade-off: sure you can set the DC at 50, but doing so has a negative consequence.  Perhaps the DC you pick is also the DC to avoid shifting the NPCs attitude toward hostility.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yup, I think this is the core of the disagreement.  There are really (at least) two different approaches to roleplaying here (and there is a better than even chance that my first attempt to define these is going to be seriously flawed):
> 
> 1) Outward portrayal of a fictional character: this is analogous to an actor trying to portray a character that the writer/director define.  This might involve trying to induce in oneself the emotions of the character, in order to make the portrayal more realistic.



 Yep, that's been called 'actor stance.'

There's also 'author stance' and 'director stance.'  FWIW.



> 2) Inward empathy with a fictional character: this is analogous to watching a movie or reading a book, and feeling scared/happy/angry/confused when a character does.  It's not the result of trying to feel that way, it happens because you self-identify with the character and the fiction is immersive.



 That's a more inclusive definition of 'immersive' than I've heard around here in a while.  I don't think Game Theorists have ever acknowledged an 'audience stance,' though...  



> I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive, but they are different, and I suspect few players prioritize both equally.



Good to remember.  Too often potentially useful characterizations get turned into antagonistic dichotomies.  I suspect the priorities aren't even consistent over time for a given player.  Some characters you might empathize with more than others, for instance.



Elfcrusher said:


> I don't hate this idea, but the issue with a "resource" is...well, the same as basing martial abilities on resources.  It may make sense for game balance, but it becomes hard to explain without making it supernatural.



 Storyteller had a stat called Willpower, you could spend it to resist your nature, push yourself, overcome various conditions and so forth.  You could recover it by acting in accord with your nature and the like.  There was plenty of supernatural stuff in storyteller, but Willpower wasn't among them.  

The concept was entirely non-controversial, we've all had the experience of reaching the limits of our self-discipline.    But, it wasn't D&D (indeed, Storyteller fans, the provocateurs of the Role v Roll debate, liked to think of their pet system as the anti-D&D).  It's really just a paleo-D&D system artifact that only magic is a x/period limited resource. 



> I'd rather see some kind of trade-off:



 A resource pool gives you trade-offs, within your character, for instance.  



> sure you can set the DC at 50, but doing so has a negative consequence.  Perhaps the DC you pick is also the DC to avoid shifting the NPCs attitude toward hostility.



 That could have issues, abd working out a complete system of checks and balances like that could get quite complex...


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yes, I agree with this in theory, but to also maintain immersion it gets very complicated, perhaps impractically so.  Elsewhere (very briefly in this thread, more extensively a year ago or so) I've written about the need for the mechanics to support positives, negatives, false positives, and false negatives in order for "detection" (stealth, traps, lies, etc.) to function in a meaningfully immersive way, by which I mean the player genuinely feels some mix of certainty/uncertainty; never (or very rarely) an absolute.



I guess I don't see it as being all that complicated...I'll explain a bit further below, after another quote...


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Fair enough but, by far the same token, that’s precisely how deception works in the game. Your “disbelief” dc is set by your Insight skill. Whatever you the player might think, your character believes the lie if you fail to beat the opposed check.
> 
> And for persuasion it could easily be an opposed check. Your wisdom vs persuasion or something like that. The mechanics are there already.



And this is what makes it all more complicated than it needs to be: letting yourself be bound to the mechanics, and leaving those mechanics open to the players.

Secret rolls are your friend (thus the player retains the uncertainty born from not knowing the reason for the narration - did a "nothing there" narration arise from a good roll proving there's nothing there or a bad roll completely missing something?).  False alarms are your friend (sometimes the rustling in the bushes really is just a raccoon).  And most important, varying and changing up your narration is your friend.  It's easy (and I'm guilty of this) to slip into a habit of using one narration for true results and another for false-true, and to no surprise the players pick up on this real fast. 

Hard-coded mechanics for resolving social interactions really aren't anybody's friend, whether it's a PC trying to persuade or intimidate an NPC or vice versa; that's what role-playing at the table is for, yet there's nothing wrong with using an informal roll* to guide one's reactions when uncertain.  But even when they're not explicitly used as such, formal hard-coded mechanics for this stuff just look from a distance like the game providing means of short-cutting or short-circuiting role-play at the table - which seems rather counterproductive to a game which in theory has role-playing as its raison d'etre.

* - I do this as DM all the time if I'm unsure what an NPC's reaction might be, particularly if a PC just said or revealed something s/he shouldn't have; a common occurrence.  I also sometimes do it as a player, particularly if I-as-player have thought of something my character might not have, or if I'm considering doing something probably very stupid (but fun!) and checking to see if my character is as unwise as I am. 

It's only complicated if you're a slave to game mechanics that IMO either shouldn't be there (social) or should be much nore nuanced (perception/hiding/etc.).

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yup, I think this is the core of the disagreement.  There are really (at least) two different approaches to roleplaying here (and there is a better than even chance that my first attempt to define these is going to be seriously flawed):
> 
> 1) Outward portrayal of a fictional character: this is analogous to an actor trying to portray a character that the writer/director define.  This might involve trying to induce in oneself the emotions of the character, in order to make the portrayal more realistic.
> 
> ...



To go a step further, I think many immersive-style players kinda drift back and forth between one and the other from time to time without realizing it, and also sometimes drift into a third type of roleplaying which is more mechanically-driven (most often seen in combat, sometimes seen in other situations; and includes some minor meta-gaming).


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> /snip.
> 
> The DM could assign varying modifiers to each.  But if that's the solution, why not let the player decide where his/her character stands on each question?




Because by letting the dice do it players are forced to react in new and unexpected ways which gets to the heart of role play. If the player always determines his or her own reaction then it becomes predictable and frankly boring.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 15, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I don't hate this idea, but the issue with a "resource" is...well, the same as basing martial abilities on resources.  It may make sense for game balance, but it becomes hard to explain without making it supernatural.



I don't agree with this at all. I've seen academic presentations about willpower as a resource - eg if you do a "can the experimental subjects stand unobserved in a room full of trays of baked cookies, smelling them but not taking any to eat" experiment, it turns out (perhaps unsurprisingly) that soldiers are able to do this easily but generic undergraduate students have a harder time of it, and (for instance) will subsequently do less well on another timed exercise, because they've already exhausted their resolve by not taking the cookies.

What's unrealistic to me is a system that posits that everyone has superheroic degrees of resolve.



Hussar said:


> Because by letting the dice do it players are forced to react in new and unexpected ways which gets to the heart of role play. If the player always determines his or her own reaction then it becomes predictable and frankly boring.



I've got not issue with this. What I would add is: if the system and mechanics are going to tell me something about how my PC reacts, I also want them to produce some game play effect on _me_ (the player) which aligns my reaction with that of the PC. I don't want to just have to _pretend_ to feel what the game tells me my character is feeling. I find rolepaying as pretending in that way a bit insipid.

(I'm not sure I agree with [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]s' (1) and (2) above - in that I'm not sure they cover the field - but I think what I'm saying here is that I personally don't really like (1).)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2018)

But [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], expecting mechanics to somehow align your personal feelings with the character’s is virtually impossible. Or at least extremely difficult. 

To me, being able to immerse yourself in a role to the point where you react AS that character is the best part of role play. 

It’s extremely hard for Bob to actually scare me at the table but I don’t find it insipid at all when a player acts as if his character is scared.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], expecting mechanics to somehow align your personal feelings with the character’s is virtually impossible. Or at least extremely difficult.



I don't really agree with this.

I mean, I have to be committed to playing the game - obviously if my PC has a penalty and I just ignore that, like a chess player who doesn't care if s/he gets checkmated, then it won't work.

But assuming I'm committed to the game, then it is possible to have mechanics that align my orientation with that of my PC.

My favourite D&D example is the Chained Cambion's "psychic chains" ability (from the 4e MM3).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Because by letting the dice do it players are forced to react in new and unexpected ways which gets to the heart of role play. If the player always determines his or her own reaction then it becomes predictable and frankly boring.




Well, sure, if the player always does the exact same thing then I agree that's boring.  Again, I'm counting on the player to actually enjoy playing the game.



pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this at all. I've seen academic presentations about willpower as a resource - eg if you do a "can the experimental subjects stand unobserved in a room full of trays of baked cookies, smelling them but not taking any to eat" experiment, it turns out (perhaps unsurprisingly) that soldiers are able to do this easily but generic undergraduate students have a harder time of it, and (for instance) will subsequently do less well on another timed exercise, because they've already exhausted their resolve by not taking the cookies.
> 
> What's unrealistic to me is a system that posits that everyone has superheroic degrees of resolve.




Fair enough.  I particularly had the scenario in my head where an NPC is trying to persuade the PC of something.  It doesn't take superhuman resolve to resist being persuaded of something to which you are adamantly opposed (unless the persuasion itself is somehow also superhuman).  If, by choosing your own DC, you are modeling your initial receptiveness/opposition to an idea, then you shouldn't be spending any real resource to do so.  Therefore any resource would be a metagame resource, which becomes hard to explain as a real thing.

Am I making any sense at all?  I promise you it makes complete sense to me.  (So I got that going for me.  Which is nice.)

Example: the hag is trying to persuade the characters to drink the ensorcelled beer.  One player claims his character hates beer, and would much prefer a Chardonnay.  The DM says, "Ok, spend 1 Willpower Point to increase the DC to persuade you."  Why would that cost a resource?  The character isn't trying extra hard to resist; he just hates beer.  

On the other hand, if it's "You may invoke a detail about your character to increase the DC to be persuaded or intimidated.  You may do this as many times as your Wisdom modifier per short rest" then that's fine and fair, but that also makes it a metagame resource not a real resource.  And, sure, we can always come up with some justification for why a metagame resource is rooted in some kind of reality, but there wouldn't be huge forum battles raging about martial abilities if there wasn't at least _something_ dissonant about it.



> (I'm not sure I agree with @_*Elfcrusher*_s' (1) and (2) above - in that I'm not sure they cover the field - but I think what I'm saying here is that I personally don't really like (1).)




Yeah I'm not sure my characterization does justice to the reality, but at least it distinguishes between 1 and 2.  And I agree about 1.



Hussar said:


> But @_*pemerton*_, expecting mechanics to somehow align your personal feelings with the character’s is virtually impossible. Or at least extremely difficult.
> 
> To me, being able to immerse yourself in a role to the point where you react AS that character is the best part of role play.
> 
> It’s extremely hard for Bob to actually scare me at the table but I don’t find it insipid at all when a player acts as if his character is scared.




Yes, it is hard to actually scare somebody, although some amount of worry for your character can at least provide a hint of the fear that your character feels (one reason I miss the old days of investing years into a character; I don't love the rapid leveling of 5e.)

The kind of immersion I'm talking about is challenging to achieve, and you don't spend an entire game in that state, but to me it's an ever-present goal to strive for.  When the NPC betrays you, you should feel genuinely shocked and betrayed.  An hour or two of "roll playing" is worth the build up for a great roleplaying denouement.

Or think about the scene in Stranger Things when Mike drops the Demogorgon on them.  Those kids are immersed.   (Which is ironic, I suppose, since they are only pretending to be immersed....)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2018)

I’d just like to say that this thread has made a really productive and interesting left turn. Thanks people.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 15, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I particularly had the scenario in my head where an NPC is trying to persuade the PC of something.  It doesn't take superhuman resolve to resist being persuaded of something to which you are adamantly opposed (unless the persuasion itself is somehow also superhuman).  If, by choosing your own DC, you are modeling your initial receptiveness/opposition to an idea, then you shouldn't be spending any real resource to do so.  Therefore any resource would be a metagame resource, which becomes hard to explain as a real thing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if it's "You may invoke a detail about your character to increase the DC to be persuaded or intimidated.  You may do this as many times as your Wisdom modifier per short rest" then that's fine and fair, but that also makes it a metagame resource not a real resource.  And, sure, we can always come up with some justification for why a metagame resource is rooted in some kind of reality, but there wouldn't be huge forum battles raging about martial abilities if there wasn't at least _something_ dissonant about it.



So if this wasn't a warlord thread, now it's become one?!?!

Given [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s optimistic post just above this one, I'll try to keep my deraiing of it to that one comment.

So I'll try a different way in: declining the offered beer seems like it might be rude. Does the PC in question have an unlimited capacity for declining polite invitations or requests?

In real life, there are innumerable occasions every day in which someone does something not because s/he really wants to but because some sort of social custom or expectation operates to produce the behaviour. A really simple example is greeting someone (whether a nod, a word, a handshake, whatever) in response to that other person's greeting; or perhaps just in response to his/her presence, if that then leads one to offer them a greeting.

If we assume that the PCs in a RPG never respond to social cues of this sort, and never participate in the associated practices, _unless the player says so_, then we're positing incredibly austere, alienated individuals as PCs. Because hardly any of the time is this sort of thing actually played out. (At least in my experience.)

In a classic D&D game, though, asking the player _on this occasion_ whether or not the PC takes the drink offered by the hag of course causes all sorts of suspicion on the part of the player! There must be _something_ going on to make this banality suddenly worth time at the table.

The previous three or four paragraphs don't offer a particular mechanical solution - but I think, if the game is going to produce verisimilitudinous characters who have somewhat normal social and affective responses, there needs to be some sort of structure or limit around the capacity of the players just to say "no, I don't like it and I don't do it" whenever some sort of social pressure comes up in play. Whether the limit is established by way of a resource, or by way of the need for a check, or - as is the case in many systems - some sort of interaction of the two, is a further more detailed design question.

(If the player takes Affectively Disconnected from Others as some sort of character trait that's a further complicating factor, but that should be affecting his/her CHA checks on behalf of the PC also, I think.)


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 15, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So I'll try a different way in: declining the offered beer seems like it might be rude. Does the PC in question have an unlimited capacity for declining polite invitations or requests?
> 
> In real life, there are innumerable occasions every day in which someone does something not because s/he really wants to but because some sort of social custom or expectation operates to produce the behaviour. A really simple example is greeting someone (whether a nod, a word, a handshake, whatever) in response to that other person's greeting; or perhaps just in response to his/her presence, if that then leads one to offer them a greeting.
> 
> ...




Yes, I agree with everything you wrote here.

Aaaaaannnnd....my conclusion is not that it's an expended resource, but that there should be an inverse/adverse reaction to the DC that you choose.  Upthread I proposed a scenario-to-scenario mechanic that would function similar to how your "Affectively Disconnected" trait would work: that is, if you choose a high DC to be persuaded, that negatively affects your interaction with the NPC.  But that's not a resource; you'd be free to continue choosing high DCs all day long.

I don't think it's terrible game design to tie something like this to a replenishable resource, I just think it would be more elegant to make it's cost be a consequence, rather than a resource.  (Similarly, I've long wished that spellcasting came with increasing risk that reset with rests, instead of Vancian or quasi-Vancian spell slots. C.f. Gandalf's reluctance to light a fire with magic on Caradhras.)


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 15, 2018)

Ooh...here's an analogy that treads dangerously close to a line:

At the moment there are literally millions of people in the U.S. who hold, shall we say, nigh unshakeable opinions about politics.  On both sides.  An extremely, extremely charismatic and persuasive person is going to face a nearly impossible task in convincing those people to change their positions.  And a sequence of such persuasive people could try, one after another, all day long, and not change a single core opinion.  Maybe they would find some success on minor points here and there, but we would not be surprised if they failed to change a single person from either supporting or not supporting a certain politician, in either direction.

And yet those millions of individuals don't necessarily have superior willpower or wisdom.  They might easily be persuaded of other things.  The fact that they spent the morning sticking to their opinions doesn't make them any more likely to change their minds in the afternoon (perhaps the opposite, really.)

On the other hand, they may very well be annoyed and ornery after being assailed all day for their beliefs.  I can imagine that whatever patience and congeniality they started the day off with is going to be less present.  But that doesn't leave them more open to persuasion.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 15, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Fair enough.  I particularly had the scenario in my head where an NPC is trying to persuade the PC of something.  It doesn't take superhuman resolve to resist being persuaded of something to which you are adamantly opposed (unless the persuasion itself is somehow also superhuman).  If, by choosing your own DC, you are modeling your initial receptiveness/opposition to an idea, then you shouldn't be spending any real resource to do so.  Therefore any resource would be a metagame resource, which becomes hard to explain as a real thing.
> 
> Example: the hag is trying to persuade the characters to drink the ensorcelled beer.  One player claims his character hates beer, and would much prefer a Chardonnay.  The DM says, "Ok, spend 1 Willpower Point to increase the DC to persuade you."  Why would that cost a resource?  The character isn't trying extra hard to resist; he just hates beer.



Which is fine provided that two years later in a situation where it's obvious that drinking beer would provide some significant benefit (e.g. a nectar-of-the-gods scenario), the player is consistent in having her PC refuse the beer.

Not all players will do this.

Lanefan


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Which is fine provided that two years later in a situation where it's obvious that drinking beer would provide some significant benefit (e.g. a nectar-of-the-gods scenario), the player is consistent in having her PC refuse the beer.
> 
> Not all players will do this.
> 
> Lanefan




Well okay sure, but that's a player problem.  Not a game mechanics problem.

And frankly, two years later the player, or the character, may have changed their mind.

EX: My wife hates beer.  But I still look for potential new beers she might like.  So every once in a while, even though she hates beer, I make a good argument for her to try a new one.  She usually doesn't like it, but she still _tried_ it.  

It's easy to resist a drink when a Hag is offering it to you.  Maybe the sexy bartender might have better luck?  Even if you hate beer, he is kinda cute.  Beyond that, if a god of goodness literally came before you and said "I will give you great power and beauty and long life, all you have to do is drink my beer!"  I can't think of a sound-minded person who wouldn't stomach even their least favorite drink for that.  

It's not out of character to ignore your own personal predilections when it is in your benefit.  I mean, I _hate_ birds, but if you told me that this pet bird was going to give me god-like powers?  Hot diggity I'd have a pet bird.  I suspect most bird-haters would too.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Which is fine provided that two years later in a situation where it's obvious that drinking beer would provide some significant benefit (e.g. a nectar-of-the-gods scenario), the player is consistent in having her PC refuse the beer.
> 
> Not all players will do this.
> 
> Lanefan




Yes, that's totally fair.

And also a good example of how I like to see characters develop.  Some folks want players to write out an extensive backstory, and if later on the player says, "Well my character..." it is expected to be in that backstory, or it didn't happen.

To me that's like having the first chapter of a book be a thorough description of the hero, which is then fixed for the rest of the book.  I'd much rather start with knowing a _little_ bit about the hero...partly so I can get to the story itself sooner...and then both see more depth be revealed in the story ("show, don't tell" and all that), and see other aspects change and grow.

Likewise, I'd rather players start off with a very rough sketch of a character concept, and then have them fill in the details as we play.

So in the above case, maybe it has never occurred the player until this very moment that his character doesn't like beer.  But as long as it fits with the concept he is developing it's fine.  Great, even.  Maybe he didn't initially realize this character would be effete, or an epicurean, but it's something that has just kind of started happening during play, and now this "I don't like beers...unless it's a really light pilsner" fits the recent trend.  

Or maybe this out of the blue, and he's been playing a Dwarf and speaking in a clichéd (and terrible) Scottish brogue.  But _this_ Dwarf hates beer.  That's interesting, too.  Especially if he's held to it later.

As another player at the table, I'm going to enjoy seeing dimensionality added to this character, in a way that I don't really get reading a prepared backstory.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> So much for player agency in that game.
> 
> And...you give or withhold xp based on playing to alignment?  Hell, that's even more old-school than me!  Didn't think that was possible 'round here...
> 
> Lanefan




withhold only. Especially if the other character elements are unfilled in.

It's not so much old school as "skinner box"...

I don't allow evil PC's except when running AL (and then only the AL legal LE), and I'm not running AL these days...

I don't force them to act according to Alignment, but the out-of-alignment acts are not without consequence.  If they choose to do so, they know the price. 

Further, by disallowing certain ones openly, and up front, they have the option to walk away up front and not waste both their and my time.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 16, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> withhold only. Especially if the other character elements are unfilled in.
> 
> It's not so much old school as "skinner box"...
> 
> ...




I have never enjoyed playing with evil characters, or really with the kind of people who tend to play evil characters.  (With a couple of notable exceptions over the years.)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I have never enjoyed playing with evil characters, or really with the kind of people who tend to play evil characters.  (With a couple of notable exceptions over the years.)




In my experience, most people seem to think evil is either mustache twirling or orphanage burning or just confuse evil with being a jerk.  This means most people's experience with evil characters is not just fun at all because everyone's just being a jerk.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 16, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> In my experience, most people seem to think evil is either mustache twirling or orphanage burning or just confuse evil with being a jerk.  This means most people's experience with evil characters is not just fun at all because everyone's just being a jerk.




Yes, exactly.  Again, with a few notable exceptions.  

But even in those cases I think I would have preferred simply to have heroes, rather than anti-heroes, in the group.

That's how I roll.  (get it?)


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 16, 2018)

I tend to find the occasional evil character in a group to be a nice change of pace. I also think it winds up helping the game because everyone has to really think about how it’s going to work. 

That little bit where the DM/players think “why would this gnoll be with these adventurers?” is great. People are engaged and considering the stoey and the characters. 

That said, yeah it’s easy for it to devolve if the players aren’t really up to it, or of the DM doesn’t know how to handle it. But there’s so many examples in ficton of the good guy working with the bad guy that I really don’t get why so many people are so opposed to it.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yes, exactly.  Again, with a few notable exceptions.
> 
> But even in those cases I think I would have preferred simply to have heroes, rather than anti-heroes, in the group.



You see, this is what I don't get - the love for all things heroic and-or goodly.  Heroes, IMO, get boring after a while; goody-two-shoes heroes even more so.  Far more fun is to play a party of characters who collectively aren't really sure what they're out here for, of a variety of ethos (or alignments) who don't always get along, and to most of whom intentional heroism is just something to be waved at as it goes by in the distance. 

Yeah, sure we might save the world now and then...but that's (usually) not the original reason why we're adventuring.  Most of the time we're just out for the fun, mayhem, staggering riches, and entertainment that comes from the adventuring lifestyle; and failing that we're each of us out working on some long-range personal goal, progress toward which for the time being can be better achieved operating in a group than as an individual.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Apr 16, 2018)

I've got nothing against PCs who are selfish or even vicious (within the limits of good taste). But there is something a bit weird about the D&D alignment system, because you _know_ you're evil. The question of right conduct has already been answered (at the table, by the alignment rules; in the fiction, by the cosmos).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> You see, this is what I don't get - the love for all things heroic and-or goodly.  Heroes, IMO, get boring after a while; goody-two-shoes heroes even more so.  Far more fun is to play a party of characters who collectively aren't really sure what they're out here for, of a variety of ethos (or alignments) who don't always get along, and to most of whom intentional heroism is just something to be waved at as it goes by in the distance.
> 
> Yeah, sure we might save the world now and then...but that's (usually) not the original reason why we're adventuring.  Most of the time we're just out for the fun, mayhem, staggering riches, and entertainment that comes from the adventuring lifestyle; and failing that we're each of us out working on some long-range personal goal, progress toward which for the time being can be better achieved operating in a group than as an individual.




Definitely wandering off-topic (maybe for the best?) but there's a middle-ground between "saving the world" and being murderhobos.  And honestly I'm tired of campaigns premised on a threat to the whole world.  (WotC adventure paths being the prime example.)

I've tried playing characters with evil-ish concepts and backgrounds, but I always ending up wanting to save the villagers and stamp out evil anyway.

I just don't think it's _fun_ to roleplay evil traits.  I'm not even very good at chaotic. 

Now, I don't mind playing a _reluctant_ hero.  Or a coward.  I can do the guy who _says_ he's just in it for the money. But neutral is about as far as I can push it before it just feels...disturbing...to want to roleplay being a bad person.

Maybe it's an "actor stance" vs. "experiential stance" (I just made that up) kind of thing.  Yes, I can imagine it would be a blast to play the villain in a movie.  But that's not what I'm doing when I RPG.



pemerton said:


> I've got nothing against PCs who are selfish or even vicious (within the limits of good taste). But there is something a bit weird about the D&D alignment system, because you _know_ you're evil. The question of right conduct has already been answered (at the table, by the alignment rules; in the fiction, by the cosmos).




Yes, that, too. The bad guys in real life invariably think they're the good guys.  And, except in cases of psychopathology, there's an argument that they are.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> And yet those millions of individuals don't necessarily have superior willpower or wisdom.  They might easily be persuaded of other things.  The fact that they spent the morning sticking to their opinions doesn't make them any more likely to change their minds in the afternoon (perhaps the opposite, really.)
> 
> On the other hand, they may very well be annoyed and ornery after being assailed all day for their beliefs.  I can imagine that whatever patience and congeniality they started the day off with is going to be less present.  But that doesn't leave them more open to persuasion.




I think this is an excellent example. In some cases, neither npc's nor players will necessarily change their minds, no matter how high you roll on your diplomacy check.

I had a conservative bishop in my campaign, who didn't think highly of women, and he also really hated pirates. The players (who played pirates) tried their best to convince him that a good friend of theirs (a woman) should be the next ruler of the city. But there was no way they were going to change his mind, no matter how good they rolled. Nor was there any chance that the bishop was going to convince the PC's that he was even remotely right. The only real option they had, was to convince enough other people to put pressure on the bishop, in order to change his mind... or to pick someone else to be the new ruler.

As a DM I find these sort of social situations in D&D very interesting. Sometimes npc's are reasonable, and sometimes they are very unreasonable. It's not only about the dice rolls.

I extend the same leniency to my players, and how their characters react to social checks. When an npc is very convincing, that doesn't mean the PC's must change their opinion. But it does affect how I describe the scene to them. I may tell them that the npc sounds reasonable and honest, and that it sounds like he means every word of what he says. I may even describe how other npc's react to it in a positive way, and may even go as far as to describe how their character understands what the npc is trying to explain.

For example, there was a one-armed Countess in my campaign, who felt strongly that security along the coast was in the best interest of the region. Which is why she supported a strong military leader as the next ruler of the city. She rolled high on her diplomacy against the players, so I explained to them how their characters knew that the Countess was from a town that had suffered greatly under several pirate attacks. It was one of these attacks that had cost her her arm, as well as her father's life. And so this well known history gave extra power to her words and opinion. It even caused a silence to drop in the room, as many nobles turned their attention to her, and many agreed with her.

That is the power of a good social roll.

*(Interesting side note: Apparently this scene made such an impression on my players, that they decided that they would try to capture the pirate that did this to her, and bring him before her, so that justice could be done to him. And justice was served very sweet.)*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 16, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I've got nothing against PCs who are selfish or even vicious (within the limits of good taste). But there is something a bit weird about the D&D alignment system, because you _know_ you're evil. The question of right conduct has already been answered (at the table, by the alignment rules; in the fiction, by the cosmos).




This was more true of past editions than of 5E. Now, in 5E there is very little mechanical impact of your alignment. Most of the spells and abilities from past editions that worked based on alignment are now keyed to creature type (fey, fiend, celestial, etc.). Alignment now is mostly just a summary of your general outlook. 

So there is no reason for a Lawful Evil person to think of themselves as "evil". They can think of themselves as being in the right through any justification the player would like (the ends justify the means, only I can safely rule, etc.). 

So it's a starting point for the player, but they can certainly examine it through play, and possibly shift things if their character's views change. Although I think this was always the case, it seems even easier in 5E.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Definitely wandering off-topic (maybe for the best?) but there's a middle-ground between "saving the world" and being murderhobos.  And honestly I'm tired of campaigns premised on a threat to the whole world.  (WotC adventure paths being the prime example.)
> 
> I've tried playing characters with evil-ish concepts and backgrounds, but I always ending up wanting to save the villagers and stamp out evil anyway.
> 
> ...




I don't know if it's that hard. I think we have to stop thinking of an evil character as being this instrument of pure evil rather than just selfish or bad in some ways. Think of all the great fiction that's involved such characters and dealt with them in at least somewhat sympathetic ways....Sopranos and Breaking Bad come to mind. 

I think Tony Soprano is undoubtedly a character we can classify as Evil for the purposes of an RPG. But that doesn't mean he does bad things indiscriminately, or without any remorse. Walter White is even less blatantly Evil, but still qualifies. 

Just a couple that spring to mind that actually seem like they'd be interesting to run. 

I think the only challenge that there really should be is to find a reason for the other PCs to be working with this person. They probably work best with like minded characters for a themed campaign, but if not, and they're to be teamed up with more heroic minded PCs, you can usually find a reason that makes it work. 

Characters that we think of as "Pure Evil" or so far beyond normal reasoning that they seem so are better avoided. I can't see how one would play a character like Hannibal Lector, for instance, or why it would be fun, nor how it would work with other players. But there's no need to go so far into the Evil territory as that.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 16, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if it's that hard. I think we have to stop thinking of an evil character as being this instrument of pure evil rather than just selfish or bad in some ways. Think of all the great fiction that's involved such characters and dealt with them in at least somewhat sympathetic ways....Sopranos and Breaking Bad come to mind.
> 
> I think Tony Soprano is undoubtedly a character we can classify as Evil for the purposes of an RPG. But that doesn't mean he does bad things indiscriminately, or without any remorse. Walter White is even less blatantly Evil, but still qualifies.
> 
> ...




Well, I wouldn't enjoy playing Tony Soprano or Walter White, either.

I could see playing Omar from The Wire.  That would work for me.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Well, I wouldn't enjoy playing Tony Soprano or Walter White, either.
> 
> I could see playing Omar from The Wire.  That would work for me.




Ha nice. I don’t even know if I’d call him evil. He breaks laws for sure, but the only people he harms are criminals, too.

Mine were just two examples, though. There are likely plenty of others that might work for an RPG.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Definitely wandering off-topic (maybe for the best?) but there's a middle-ground between "saving the world" and being murderhobos.  And honestly I'm tired of campaigns premised on a threat to the whole world.  (WotC adventure paths being the prime example.)



Yeah, if for no other reason than once you've saved the world, where do you go from there?



> I've tried playing characters with evil-ish concepts and backgrounds, but I always ending up wanting to save the villagers and stamp out evil anyway.



Oh, my evil guy will save the villagers (they're more profitable to me alive than dead unless I'm playing a Necromancer) and stamp out evil (a.k.a. competition for the same resources) - no problem there!   But those villagers will repay that debt ten times over, and my methods of stamping out other competing evils won't be pretty...or ethical...



> I just don't think it's _fun_ to roleplay evil traits.  I'm not even very good at chaotic.



Chaotic is my natural environment.   I'm not that great at playing truly Lawful characters, though I try now and then.



> Now, I don't mind playing a _reluctant_ hero.  Or a coward.  I can do the guy who _says_ he's just in it for the money. But neutral is about as far as I can push it before it just feels...disturbing...to want to roleplay being a bad person.
> 
> Maybe it's an "actor stance" vs. "experiential stance" (I just made that up) kind of thing.  Yes, I can imagine it would be a blast to play the villain in a movie.  But that's not what I'm doing when I RPG.



I look for something more like Game of Thrones, where sooner or later most people will show both their good side and their bad side but mostly it's dog-eat-dog and laws are largely ignored in favour of what will keep me (and my party, usually) alive here and now.  Lots of shades of gray rather than hard-bordered alignments.

Lanefan


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I look for something more like Game of Thrones....




And I'm more of the other "R.R."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> And, sure, we can always come up with some justification for why a metagame resource is rooted in some kind of reality,



 Such as the reality of a distant-future Earth imagined by Jack Vance. 



> but there wouldn't be huge forum battles raging about martial abilities if there wasn't at least _something_ dissonant about it.



 There were two major sources of that dissonance, that it deviated from the inertia of the classic game, and that it resulted in martial classes being reasonably balanced with the other Sources.

Only the former source of dissonance remains in 5e, and, in spite if there being such martial resources still in the game, the controversy is all but gone - unless the topic shifts to expanding those resources to in any way rival spells, again.



Lanefan said:


> Yeah, if for no other reason than once you've saved the world, where do you go from there?



 Anywhere you want in the world, since it's still there.



hawkeyefan said:


> This was more true of past editions than of 5E. Now, in 5E there is very little mechanical impact of your alignment.



 To be fair, the mechanical impact of alignment was pretty extreme in the classic game, and almost taken to the level of parody with 3.x's "Team Alignment" mechanics (why yes, every alignment gets mechanically similar anti-the-diametrically-opposed-alignment spells and magic items, it's only fair).  It was 4e which pendulum-swung away from that precipitously, both simplifying alignment and purging alignment-driven spells, items and other mechanics.  Backsliding began even before Essentials and the MME, and 5e has backslid only a little further, so far (returning to the more complicated/grid-filled/arbitrary 9-alignment system), but it is part of the return swing.



hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if it's that hard. I think we have to stop thinking of an evil character as being this instrument of pure evil rather than just selfish or bad in some ways.



 "Just selfish or bad in some ways," would be that messy neutral-but-not-philosophically-TN, maybe with some 'evil tendencies' of the 9-alignment system (or simply 'Unalligned' in the 5-alignment system).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> There were two major sources of that dissonance, that it deviated from the inertia of the classic game, and that it resulted in martial classes being reasonably balanced with the other Sources.
> 
> Only the former source of dissonance remains in 5e, and, in spite if there being such martial resources still in the game, the controversy is all but gone - unless the topic shifts to expanding those resources to in any way rival spells, again.




I know lots of people have an axe to grind on this issue, but I don't.  I _think_ my view isn't laden with baggage.  (But do we ever know that for sure?)  

I'm completely fine with Battlemasters having expertise dice, for example, and understand the balance need, and at the same time can acknowledge that it's awkward narratively for those abilities to not be at-will (like Sneak Attack or Martial Arts) and instead be tied to a resource that replenishes on a rest.  I don't raise a stink about it, but it's awkward.  It's less elegant design than I would wish for it to be.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I _think_ my view isn't laden with baggage.



 The thing we have differing views of - in this instance, D&D, since that's where the reactions you're talking about come in - is laden with baggage.  



> I'm completely fine with Battlemasters having expertise dice, for example, and understand the balance need, and at the same time can acknowledge that it's awkward narratively for those abilities to not be at-will (like Sneak Attack or Martial Arts) and instead be tied to a resource that replenishes on a rest.



 The same sorts of issues were brought up over casters 'forgetting' spells back in the early days, and alternate systems, where spells were cast with mana points or with failure/backlash chances were not at all unusual.  Folks got used to the gamist compromise of n/day spellcasting, and it became engrained, in D&D it became definitively 'magical,' even though it defined magic nowhere in the broader fantasy genre (Dying Earth being technically sci-fi).

Martial Arts - Ki in 5e D&D - isn't at-will, either... oh, and it's explicitly magical.  :shrug:

D&D's dissonances are many and overwhelming until you get used to 'em.   

It's not really much of an issue in other RPGs, once you leave D&D's immediate orbit (D&D, d20, fantasy heartbreakers).  In Hero System, for instance, you could take a power with 1 charge and a 'martial' (arts, probably) Special Effect and no one would think anything of it - and, of course, such limitations are entirely in the hands of the player building a power to fit his character.  By the same token you could buy your magical-F/X power at 0 END and use it every phase all day, no issues, it'd still be magical.  

Then, anything less dissonant (like casters suddenly getting at-wills & rituals) become dissonant.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> So there is no reason for a Lawful Evil person to think of themselves as "evil". They can think of themselves as being in the right through any justification the player would like (the ends justify the means, only I can safely rule, etc.).




Does it really matter what the Character think of themselves?  Just because you dont think that you are Evil does not mean that you are not Evil.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Does it really matter what the Character think of themselves?  Just because you dont think that you are Evil does not mean that you are not Evil.



Depends whether alignments are defined from an objective or subjective point of view.

I have it that a Cleric casting _Know Alignment_ is going to get results tinted by her own alignment e.g. a very Chaotic Cleric might get a somewhat Lawful result while a very Lawful Cleric might get a somewhat Chaotic result from the same objectively-pure-Neutral target.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Depends whether alignments are defined from an objective or subjective point of view.
> 
> I have it that a Cleric casting _Know Alignment_ is going to get results tinted by her own alignment e.g. a very Chaotic Cleric might get a somewhat Lawful result while a very Lawful Cleric might get a somewhat Chaotic result from the same objectively-pure-Neutral target.




How could you define it subjectively?

Know Alignment just gets turned into Detect Difference of Opinion.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2018)

Rolling back to the idea of people not being able to be convinced of something, using a real world political issue in a certain country.  

Sure, we can come up with all sorts of examples of someone not being able to convince someone else to do something regardless of how persuasive they are.  

But, just because those exist doesn't mean that we have to insist that no PC can EVER be persuaded because of a persuasion check.  Isn't that why we have a DM at the table?


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> How could you define it subjectively?
> 
> Know Alignment just gets turned into Detect Difference of Opinion.



Kind of, yes; though it'd be more Difference in Overall Outlook on Life (macro-scale) than just Difference of Opinion (micro-scale).


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Rolling back to the idea of people not being able to be convinced of something, using a real world political issue in a certain country.
> 
> Sure, we can come up with all sorts of examples of someone not being able to convince someone else to do something regardless of how persuasive they are.
> 
> But, just because those exist doesn't mean that we have to insist that no PC can EVER be persuaded because of a persuasion check.  Isn't that why we have a DM at the table?




The DM should just try to persuade and then let the Player decide if their PC is in fact persuaded.

If they want to control what the Players do then an RPG is not really a very good medium for that.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Does it really matter what the Character think of themselves?  Just because you dont think that you are Evil does not mean that you are not Evil.




Well, my comment was made in response to another comment about how alignment basically just dictated a character’s decisions ahead of time (something like that, I’m paraphrasing), so I was saying that the reduction in the mechanical importance of alignment means that characters need not be pigeonholed. Because alignment for PCs no longer really matters. Instead, it’s there for the players.

I think a world where the characters can actually know that they are an alignment like Lawful Evil is very different from one where they don’t know.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 17, 2018)

Did I mention recently that D&D's alignment system sucks? It's not a system that supports (or helps with) the creation of realistic characters.

The only purpose it serves somewhat reasonably is to describe the minds and behavioral patterns of alien beings with immutable alignments (angels, devils, etc.) in accordance with the cosmology introduced in AD&D 1e, i.e. it only works for beings that don't have the freedom of choice.

Even a BBEG doesn't really work well with such an abstract and one-dimensional personality. A 'good' BBEG will have motives and goals that may be misguided but ultimately comprehensible, given some background information.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Does it really matter what the Character think of themselves?  Just because you dont think that you are Evil does not mean that you are not Evil.



The issue is the reverse from the one you mention. In classic D&D it is fairly straightforward for any character of note to have Know Alignment cast on him-/herself to confirm his/her alignment; and there is a further argument that one knows one's alignment innately, in virtue of knowing an alignment language.

Which means that, in classic D&D, evil protagonists and antagonists _know_ that they are evil. Which is weird. Even when Milton's Satan says, "Evil, be though my good" he is most naturally read as using "evil" ironically, or to refer to that which others judge evil but which is _his_ good.



Jhaelen said:


> Did I mention recently that D&D's alignment system sucks?



I think it sucks if you want to have a campaign where what counts as good or evil is a live question - because the system already answers that. (Respecting rights and fostering wellbeing is good; wantonly disregarding those things is evil.)

I think it can be more interesting if you want to focus on the question of what is the best _means_ to good - individual self-realisation (as the chaotics hold) or social structure and order (as the lawfuls hold). In other words, if you accept that CG and LG can't _both_ be right, then you have an interesting field for contestation. (I also think this makes the cosmology incoherent, as the Seven Heavens and Olympus imply that in fact LG and CG both _are_ right - ie either can be a means to good - at which point the difference seems purely aesthetic rather than genuinely moral or ethical.)



Jhaelen said:


> The only purpose it serves somewhat reasonably is to describe the minds and behavioral patterns of alien beings with immutable alignments (angels, devils, etc.) in accordance with the cosmology introduced in AD&D



That is an alternative approach. But then I think it would be more helpful to drop the moralised language. Demons are wild, destructive and vicious - what does it add to that to say "Oh, and they're _evil_ too!"


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 17, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Did I mention recently that D&D's alignment system sucks? It's not a system that supports (or helps with) the creation of realistic characters.




Its not designed for that purpose. D&D alignment system is a general guideline, although the distinction between good and evil is pretty clear. But why would it need to support/help-with the creation of realistic characters specifically? Most D&D characters are unrealistic.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Did I mention recently that D&D's alignment system sucks? It's not a system that supports (or helps with) the creation of realistic characters.




So the problem you have with creating realistic characters using DnD rules is alignment?


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The issue is the reverse from the one you mention. In classic D&D it is fairly straightforward for any character of note to have Know Alignment cast on him-/herself to confirm his/her alignment; and there is a further argument that one knows one's alignment innately, in virtue of knowing an alignment language.
> 
> Which means that, in classic D&D, evil protagonists and antagonists _know_ that they are evil. Which is weird. Even when Milton's Satan says, "Evil, be though my good" he is most naturally read as using "evil" ironically, or to refer to that which others judge evil but which is _his_ good.




If you think about it logically the only wierd thing is for someone to justify to themselves for example that killing one, two, a hundred people is actually a "good" act.  You know they only eat the ugly babies so its all about making the world a more beautiful place.



> That is an alternative approach. But then I think it would be more helpful to drop the moralised language. Demons are wild, destructive and vicious - what does it add to that to say "Oh, and they're _evil_ too!"




So which creatures are the wild, destructive and vicious ones that are 'good' too?   Maybe they are not evil too, maybe they are evil because they are wild, destructive and vicious.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The DM should just try to persuade and then let the Player decide if their PC is in fact persuaded.
> 
> If they want to control what the Players do then an RPG is not really a very good medium for that.




I disagree, obviously.

Framing a character in a situation that the player may not have intentionally placed him or herself into is the heart of roleplaying.  It forces the player to actually immerse themselves in a role that they aren't 100% sure of and have to react to a situation in a way that challenges the player's ability to portray that character.

I mean, "country bumpkin just off the turnip wagon" is a pretty common background.  Or that PC with a dumped Wis/Int score suddenly becomes Sherlock Holmes whenever someone talks them isn't terribly believable.  I find it far more plausible that a character be influenced by the NPC when the mechanics call for it.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> If you think about it logically the only wierd thing is for someone to justify to themselves for example that killing one, two, a hundred people is actually a "good" act.  You know they only eat the ugly babies so its all about making the world a more beautiful place.



Yet the world is full of such people, most of whom don't regard themselves as evil.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Framing a character in a situation that the player may not have intentionally placed him or herself into is the heart of roleplaying.  It forces the player to actually immerse themselves in a role that they aren't 100% sure of and have to react to a situation in a way that challenges the player's ability to portray that character.



I agree with the first sentence. The second I agree with less, because I'm more into "inhabitation" of the character than "portrayal" of the character.

But the first sentence is enough, I think to provide a rationale (not necessarily a knock-down argument) for social mechanics that can affect PCs. (What form that effect takes is a further thing. A lot of discussion in this thread seems to assume 3E-style mechanics, which I think are widely regarded as rather poor, rather than better mechanics from other systems.)


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I disagree, obviously.
> 
> Framing a character in a situation that the player may not have intentionally placed him or herself into is the heart of roleplaying.  It forces the player to actually immerse themselves in a role that they aren't 100% sure of and have to react to a situation in a way that challenges the player's ability to portray that character.




I dont know if forcing a Player to react unrealistically just because the DM has rolled high is the heart of roleplaying.  It seems to me that choosing to spit in the Kings eye never mind the consequences is a better choice then just blindly following along just because the King has a +20 on his Diplomacy.



> I mean, "country bumpkin just off the turnip wagon" is a pretty common background.  Or that PC with a dumped Wis/Int score suddenly becomes Sherlock Holmes whenever someone talks them isn't terribly believable.  I find it far more plausible that a character be influenced by the NPC when the mechanics call for it.




Maybe the DM should just stick to roleplaying his NPCs and leave the PC roleplaying to the Player.  Or maybe a turnip farmer can be just as good at noticing stuff as a morphine addict?


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Yet the world is full of such people, most of whom don't regard themselves as evil.




Yup, the real world is certainly a wierd place indeed.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Rolling back to the idea of people not being able to be convinced of something, using a real world political issue in a certain country.
> 
> Sure, we can come up with all sorts of examples of someone not being able to convince someone else to do something regardless of how persuasive they are.
> 
> But, just because those exist doesn't mean that we have to insist that no PC can EVER be persuaded because of a persuasion check.  Isn't that why we have a DM at the table?



I thought it was why we had _players._


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont know if forcing a Player to react unrealistically just because the DM has rolled high is the heart of roleplaying.  It seems to me that choosing to spit in the Kings eye never mind the consequences is a better choice then just blindly following along just because the King has a +20 on his Diplomacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the DM should just stick to roleplaying his NPCs and leave the PC roleplaying to the Player.  Or maybe a turnip farmer can be just as good at noticing stuff as a morphine addict?




Hang on, who said anything about forcing a player to react unrealistically?  That would be bad for everyone at the table.

But, yeah, the player choosing to spit in the King's eye because "F you, you can't tell me what to do!" is the absolute worst kind of role player.  The disruptive player who retreats behind "Well, it's my character and that's what my character would do!"  No thanks.

I truly believe that the mechanics should guide the player to playing the character they actually created, not just whatever they feel like playing.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont know if forcing a Player to react unrealistically just because the DM has rolled high is the heart of roleplaying.  It seems to me that choosing to spit in the Kings eye never mind the consequences is a better choice then just blindly following along just because the King has a +20 on his Diplomacy.
> 
> Maybe the DM should just stick to roleplaying his NPCs and leave the PC roleplaying to the Player.  Or maybe a turnip farmer can be just as good at noticing stuff as a morphine addict?



As opposed to the Player expectation that NPCs react unrealistically because the Player rolled high? Or the Player feeling that their character is persusasive as part of their character concept but fail to persuade the DM's concept of the NPC without the aid of dice resolution mechanics? Or as opposed to the Player forcing their character to act unrealistically out-of-character because the player does not want their character to be subject to the same governing norms, realities, and fallibilities that exist in the game as expressed by the mechanics? If I could get my character out of danger by simply declaring as a player that I am not persuaded, then I may as well declare that my character is constantly wearing an invisible invulnerable force field.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 17, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Spot on.  It's not that no PC will ever be persuaded, it's that such an outcome is solely up to the player's discretion.  If a player refuses to ever make a choice that contributes narratively to the story more than mechanically to his character, maybe he is playing the wrong game?


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Spot on.  It's not that no PC will ever be persuaded, it's that such an outcome is solely up to the player's discretion.  If a player refuses to ever make a choice that contributes narratively to the story more than mechanically to his character, maybe he is playing the wrong game?



Or maybe they are simply playing the same game approach that your are tacitly authorizing that uses player fiat as an opt-out for avoiding in-game consequences.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> If a player refuses to ever make a choice that contributes narratively to the story more than mechanically to his character, maybe he is playing the wrong game?



For me, this goes back to the "inhabitation" vs "portrayal" issue.

What you say would make sense on a "portrayal" conception of RPGing. But by the same token, a "portrayal" conception doesn't seem to need combat mechanics of the D&D sort either - the GM could roll the attack die, narrate the deftness and/or force of the NPC's bladework, and then the player would choose whether or not s/he thinks the character s/he is portraying could dodge or withstand that blow, or rather suffer its force.

But D&D mechanics don't work that way for combat, because they favour an "inhabitation" approach: the mechanics yield results that have implications for the player as a participant in the game (_my game piece is being worn down_) that mirror what is happening to the PC (_I am being worn down_).

One example where the D&D mechanics seem to have trouble in relation to the "inhabitation"/"portrayal" contrast is falling damage: on an inhabitation model, a high level PC knows that s/he can safely jump 50' straight down - and that's how I play my PCs and would expect players in my game to play theirs - whereas others want this to be approached on a portrayal approach, where the player portrays someone afraid of the possibility of death from such a fall even though the _player_ knows that there is no risk of death.

I find the "portrayal" approach to falling damage rather insipid, and have the same view about that approach to social interaction: if I'm accepting the duke's proposal because _that's how I feel I'm required to portray my PC_, even though nothing in the actual situation as the game represents it to me is providing me with that signal, I find that a bit insipid. It's like I'm betraying my PC in pursuit of some impersonal goal of "appropriate portrayal". I prefer game mechanics that don't set up this sort of wedge between play expectation and game representation.

I'll cheerfully agree that it can be harder to do that for social conflict than physical conflict - but I don't think that means it can't be done. And I also want to make it clear that I'm not talking about the GM taking over the PC (ie turning the PC into a NPC). I'm talking about _how I want the game to represent my PC to me_, which then feeds into how I play my PC because I am "inhabiting" him/her. (And because we're mostly talking about situations in which the PC is not initially disposed to go along with the NPC's request, that representation most of the time should probably capture some idea of reluctance, or hesitation, or compromise, or being in two minds, etc.) 

These representations the game makes to me might include penalties to, or even prohibition of or mandating of, certain actions (eg PCs in Classic Traveller who fail a morale check have extremely constrained action options); but they aren't the result of the GM taking over the PC, anymore than dropping to zero hp is. They're the result of the mechanical framework - and this is why a sound mechanical framework, which appropriately connects fictional situation, the place of the PC in that situation, and consequence, is fundamental.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 17, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Or maybe they are simply playing the same game approach that your are tacitly authorizing that uses player fiat as an opt-out for avoiding in-game consequences.




Yes.  Like I said, maybe they are playing the wrong game.

We all know lots of examples of disruptive behavior that is 100% within the rules.

And I will point out that there is no rule that says a successful Persuasion check forces a target to agree to an action.  I am implementing RAW.  (If anything, the converse is the house rule.)  So don't give me any "if you are creating your own rules you are encouraging the behavior" nonsense.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> For me, this goes back to the "inhabitation" vs "portrayal" issue.
> 
> What you say would make sense on a "portrayal" conception of RPGing. But by the same token, a "portrayal" conception doesn't seem to need combat mechanics of the D&D sort either - the GM could roll the attack die, narrate the deftness and/or force of the NPC's bladework, and then the player would choose whether or not s/he thinks the character s/he is portraying could dodge or withstand that blow, or rather suffer its force.
> 
> ...




Yes, and I agree with all of this.

I will point out that a perfectly fine use of "portrayal" mechanics in combat is in PvP.  I can't remember if I got this from @_*iserith*_ or @_*Bawylie*_, but if one player attacks another player I ignore the dice rolls and just ask the target of the attack to narrate the outcome.  If they counterattack, then the first player narrates the outcome.  Etc.  I used it once recently...with a troublesome player...and it resolved the situation.  Some of the participants, who would rather have been fighting monsters, even voluntarily took damage.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 17, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Or maybe they are simply playing the same game approach that your are tacitly authorizing that uses player fiat as an opt-out for avoiding in-game consequences.



Why would you assume there's no consequences?  Let's assume you do spot in the King's face; sure, maybe you avoid being forced to agree with the DMNPC, but surely you aren't saying that there'd be no consequence for this?

Similarly for the negotiating Prince -- refusing the offer of a powerful figure should have many consequences, and I'd play that up.  The stakes and consequences of a negotiation aren't that the PC might be forced to acceed to the demands of the DMNPC but should be set add part of the scene.  Your focusing on the mechanical resolution as if ous the crux when is just a tool, and one that shouldn't be used to force player choices.

And note choices.  Being hit in combat isn't a choice -- the PC is never offered the choice to be hit or not.  But it has a consequence.  So should a NPC pushing and agenda at the player.  If the player chooses to not accept it, there may be consequences for this, even very bad ones, but one shouldn't be "I, as DM who built this NPC, have him overwhelming social souls, picked his agenda, framed this scene, and then forced this check, get to tell you what your character does."  The DM already had lots of Asbury to bring pressure on players, they shouldnt also be able to abuse mechanics you take the one thing player have complete power over -- what choices they make in response.

If you're going to remove choice, have the decency to just narrate at your players instead of pretending that they actually have options.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Did I mention recently that D&D's alignment system sucks? It's not a system that supports (or helps with) the creation of realistic characters.



 If you haven't personally, lately, someone else, somewhere, probably has, prettymuch every day for the last 40 years.  

It is kinda terrible in that way.  It also introduces good & evil (and law & chaos - go Moorcock!) into the cosmology as palpable forces, not just philosophical viewpoints.  It's a potentially powerful concept that could be used to paint a very high-fantasy style of campaign.  D&D has mostly used it on old-school gotchyas and 3.x's 'Team Alignment' mechanics, though.  So still kinda terrible, I guess.



pemerton said:


> The issue is the reverse from the one you mention. In classic D&D it is fairly straightforward for any character of note to have Know Alignment cast on him-/herself to confirm his/her alignment; and there is a further argument that one knows one's alignment innately, in virtue of knowing an alignment language.
> 
> Which means that, in classic D&D, evil protagonists and antagonists _know_ that they are evil. Which is weird.



 It certainly feels weird to modern sensibilities, centuries after the Enlightenment.  But it's not entirely out of place in the brands of fantasy that indulge in black & white morality.



Hussar said:


> Sure, we can come up with all sorts of examples of someone not being able to convince someone else to do something regardless of how persuasive they are.
> 
> But, just because those exist doesn't mean that we have to insist that no PC can EVER be persuaded because of a persuasion check.  Isn't that why we have a DM at the table?



 I think it's fair to say that in systems where a 'Persuasion' skill exists there'll be circumstances where it's not useful.  Those circumstances probably shouldn't be limited to 'using the skill on a PC,' though.  



Hussar said:


> I mean, "country bumpkin just off the turnip wagon" is a pretty common background.  Or that PC with a dumped Wis/Int score suddenly becomes Sherlock Holmes whenever someone talks them isn't terribly believable.  I find it far more plausible that a character be influenced by the NPC when the mechanics call for it.



 Sometimes it really is just players angling for advantage.  The player who builds a 3.5 diplomancer wants skills to work per RAW, the one who dumps WIS/CHA thinks we should 'roleplay through' everything, instead.  

(Cynical, I know.  But, unlike evil people who think they're good, I at least know I'm cynical.)




Elfcrusher said:


> And I will point out that there is no rule that says a successful Persuasion check forces a target to agree to an action.  I am implementing RAW.



 Which system are you talking about, exactly?  (Because this is the general forum, so a lot of systems could be relevant, many of which have no Persuasion skill, at all.)  

Besides, I've gotten the impression, this whole time, that you're arguing /against/ following systems (unless magic, natch) in the general arena of PC thoughts/feelings/decisions...?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Which system are you talking about, exactly?  (Because this is the general forum, so a lot of systems could be relevant, many of which have no Persuasion skill, at all.)





Oops, yeah, I forgot that games exist other than 5e.  I mean, I forgot we aren't in the 5e forum.



> Besides, I've gotten the impression, this whole time, that you're arguing /against/ following systems (unless magic, natch) in the general arena of PC thoughts/feelings/decisions...?




Errr...no, not exactly?
1) I will argue that 5e does not explicitly authorize the DM to dictate thoughts/feelings/decisions, although it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it.
2) And I would probably personally tend to dislike systems that did explicitly authorize it.  Or at least that aspect of the systems.

I haven't meant to convey that I think such rules should simply be ignored, in cases where they exist.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Hang on, who said anything about forcing a player to react unrealistically?  That would be bad for everyone at the table.



Agreed.



> But, yeah, the player choosing to spit in the King's eye because "F you, you can't tell me what to do!" is the absolute worst kind of role player.  The disruptive player who retreats behind "Well, it's my character and that's what my character would do!"  No thanks.



Disagreed.

Provided they're consistent with it, and that they don't cpmplain about the consequences thus generated, in my eyes those are the best kind of roleplayers.  They're doing what their character would do without regard for metagame considerations.

Of course any character who spits in the King's eye probably has a very short playable lifespan ahead, as its next destination will be either a long stay in the King's dungeon or a quick death provided by an overenthusiastic guard or the hangman's noose.  But if the player's cool with this, no worries! 



> I truly believe that the mechanics should guide the player to playing the character they actually created, not just whatever they feel like playing.



And if the character thus created has been consistent in its F-you attitude toward authority why should it change now?

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oops, yeah, I forgot that games exist other than 5e.  I mean, I forgot we aren't in the 5e forum.



 Yeah, I had to page up to the top & double-check before I asked.  



> Errr...no, not exactly?
> 1) I will argue that 5e does not explicitly authorize the DM to dictate thoughts/feelings/decisions, although it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it.



 The DM is explicitly authorized to give out Inspiration, for one 5e instance, and, while Inspiration is an optional sub-system, the DM is also the one who decides which optional sib-systems to use.  The 5e DM also narrates the results of checks, which is a tremendous amount of latitude to dictate just about everything, really - and not just with Persuasion checks.  So the DM seems prettywell authorized - or "Empowered" as 5e would put it - though under no obligation...



> 2) And I would probably personally tend to dislike systems that did explicitly authorize it.  Or at least that aspect of the systems.
> I haven't meant to convey that I think such rules should simply be ignored, in cases where they exist.



 Though simply ignoring a rule is also entirely on the table for DMs running 5e.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> To be fair, the mechanical impact of alignment was pretty extreme in the classic game, and almost taken to the level of parody with 3.x's "Team Alignment" mechanics (why yes, every alignment gets mechanically similar anti-the-diametrically-opposed-alignment spells and magic items, it's only fair).  It was 4e which pendulum-swung away from that precipitously, both simplifying alignment and purging alignment-driven spells, items and other mechanics.  Backsliding began even before Essentials and the MME, and 5e has backslid only a little further, so far (returning to the more complicated/grid-filled/arbitrary 9-alignment system), but it is part of the return swing.
> 
> "Just selfish or bad in some ways," would be that messy neutral-but-not-philosophically-TN, maybe with some 'evil tendencies' of the 9-alignment system (or simply 'Unalligned' in the 5-alignment system).




I don't see the installment of a 9 alignment system as backsliding, really. I see it as a middle ground between fully changing the system and keeping alignment as a mechanical expression in the game.

As for my general description of "selfish or bad in some ways", I think with a little more to go on, we could come up with an alignment that suited the character. I also think that one of the results of removing mechanical impact of alignment is that it makes each seem a little less absolute. Going solely off my game, it seems that my players are a little more open to the idea of a character taking an action that is counter to their alignment. 

The only alignment restriction that's come up at all in our game is that a PC needs to be of Good alignment to wield the Sunsword. Beyond that, it seems to be more of a story related label.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't see the installment of a 9 alignment system as backsliding, really



 Maybe 'backsliding' is an unfairly easy thing to hang on a game that set out, explicitly, and continually re-affirmed throughout it's playtest, the goal if evoking the classic game.  

But, it is certainly going back to the 9-alignment system, and some mechanical impact, from a simpler/more intuitive (CG, LE, CN, LN, & TN having each thrown some folks) one with less mechanical impact.



> I see it as a middle ground between fully changing the system and keeping alignment as a mechanical expression in the game.



 9 alignments is the middle ground between 9 alignments and no alignments?  Wouldn't 4.5 be the mid-point.  ;P

Seriously, though, it's fine to note that alignment has not been returned to nearly the invasive mechanical bugaboo it was in the classic game.  Just don't kid anyone 5e 'reduced' that impact, anymore than it nerfed casters relative to the preceding edition.

5e is very much a compromise edition, so for any given horrendous D&Dism it's typically better than the worst offender, but that doesn't mean 5e, itself fixed the issue, just that it didn't restore it fully relative to the version that did.



> I also think that one of the results of removing mechanical impact of alignment is that it makes each seem a little less absolute.



 My observation, from when the mechanical impact of alignment was removed, 6 years before 5e hit the shelves, was that it made players more inclined to play 'unaligned' characters, as they were more open to a range of personality & motivation, since there was no benefit to playing the more prescriptive alignments.  It also helped that the alignments were fewer and more intuituve, there was no confusion over seemingly (to brand-new players) 'contradictory' alignments like CG or LE, nor temptation to use CN as an excuse for disruptive behavior...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
> ...




But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM.  But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok?  How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> As opposed to the Player expectation that NPCs react unrealistically because the Player rolled high? Or the Player feeling that their character is persusasive as part of their character concept but fail to persuade the DM's concept of the NPC without the aid of dice resolution mechanics? Or as opposed to the Player forcing their character to act unrealistically out-of-character because the player does not want their character to be subject to the same governing norms, realities, and fallibilities that exist in the game as expressed by the mechanics? If I could get my character out of danger by simply declaring as a player that I am not persuaded, then I may as well declare that my character is constantly wearing an invisible invulnerable force field.




I dont see how choosing to fight the King rather then accepting his quest to save his Daughter from the Dragon is the same as getting your character out of danger by wearing an invisible invulnerable force field.

It just means that I reject your plot hook and replace it with my own.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, yeah, the player choosing to spit in the King's eye because "F you, you can't tell me what to do!" is the absolute worst kind of role player.  The disruptive player who retreats behind "Well, it's my character and that's what my character would do!"  No thanks.
> 
> I truly believe that the mechanics should guide the player to playing the character they actually created, not just whatever they feel like playing.




Then I will just give you my character sheet and you can narrate the way the story will unfold without actually needing me to be there.  Say us both a lot of trouble that way.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM.  But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok?  How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?



The former are the consequences of my choice of how to play.  The latter is not a choice.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM.  But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok?  How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?




It is the difference between being Drafted and Volunteering.  I know that if I choose not to be Drafted then there is going to be consequences, it is not like there is going to be some kind of invisible force field protecting my character.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM.  But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok?  How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?




Now that I have a bit more time, I'll expound on my short answer.

The job of the DM is to present the world and narrate results.  The job of the players is to make choices and declare actions.  This is pretty much true of all games that feature a GM/player split.  The problem is when the lines get crossed.  If the DM is making choices for the players, it's less than good.  This can happen by using geas to force actions by the PCs or by framing a situation that the King is making a demand on your life and you, as a player, made no choices to be there.  A good game develops when the choices that are made by the player unfold into the game. 

If the situation is that the players make choices that result in gaining an audience with the king, and, at that point, surrounded by the guard and the court, a player chooses to spit in the king's face, I, as DM, am going to certainly honor that player's choice and narrate the brief altercation, arrest, imprisonment, and beheading the next morning.  Consequences for actions that are fairly presented with known stakes are very kosher and the root of the game.  Using DM force to make decisions for the players (ie, the King rolled a 35 on his Diplomacy, you have to take his quest now!) is bad.  The reason for this is because the DM already controls the scene -- he presents it to the players, they have no choice here.  The DM also built the king, and can do so in a way that's abusive.  The DM is also choosing to push the King's build in the scene he set onto the players for the purpose of forcing a course of action from the players.  In effect, the DM is just narrating what the characters do and only pretending to give the players an option.  There isn't one, this is a pure railroad.

For the record, when I say railroad I mean that the _outcomes _are predetermined by the DM and forced to occur.  Framing a scene that fronts a specific challenge is not a railroad, even if it removes some choices, so long as the outcome of the scene is up to the players -- ie, the outcome rests on the player's actions and the mechanics resolving the players actions (not DMNPCs).

On a side note, I used to be in the camp that let NPCs roll against players.  I'm not anymore, because I realized that's me, as DM, forcing things onto to the players.  I now prefer the play concept that I describe scenes, players describe actions, then I narrate results and use mechanics to resolve uncertainties.  Wash, repeat.  There's no room for the DM to roll against the players in this concept.  Any agenda by NPCs is part of the framing of the scene and the implicit and explicit stakes bet by the players as part of their action declarations.  So, if the Prince wants to convince to players to rescue his daughter, he has to bring actual stakes to the table rather than a high diplomacy check.  NPC skills are used to set DCs or for contested rolls when applicable against player action declarations.

Combat is a special case of the above, where rolls are made against the players.  This is because the explicit stakes of the combat sub-game are randomized to, ostensibly, increase tension and dramatic impacts.  And, my players like combats, so I'm not going to make major changes around things they like.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM.  But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok?  How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?



 Because it's not being railroaded, at all, if he'd been railroaded, he'd be on the quest.  He's not, he's dead, that's about as far from being on the quest as you can get.   
It's more like being run over by the train.  A railroad was involved, your heirs might even be able to slap it with a wrongful death suit, but you are in no way a passenger on that railroad, being taken to the next destination, lamenting the lack of options to take side-trips or choose alternate destinations where track has not yet been laid.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2018)

Which would be all well and good except that in play it’s a pretty rare dm that just flat out whacks the pc. 

Meh, I’m not a huge believer in the divide as I used to be. I have no problems with players stepping into the dms role from time to time and taking control of the game. Nor do I have a particular issue with the dm forcing particular situations. As I said, to me it’s the mark of a really great player who can incorporate these outside elements and build an even better game. 

It’s not “less good” at all. It’s all about how you portray your character.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Which would be all well and good except that in play it’s a pretty rare dm that just flat out whacks the pc.
> 
> Meh, I’m not a huge believer in the divide as I used to be. I have no problems with players stepping into the dms role from time to time and taking control of the game. Nor do I have a particular issue with the dm forcing particular situations. As I said, to me it’s the mark of a really great player who can incorporate these outside elements and build an even better game.
> 
> It’s not “less good” at all. It’s all about how you portray your character.




How, exactly, am I portraying my character when the DM rolls some dice at me and tells me what my character thinks and does?  I'm portaying nothing -- the DM's portraying my character _for me_ at that moment.  This is the problem.  The DM already has the world and all the NPCs and the rules.  If the DM also can play my character for me, why am I there at all?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Which would be all well and good except that in play it’s a pretty rare dm that just flat out whacks the pc.
> 
> Meh, I’m not a huge believer in the divide as I used to be. I have no problems with players stepping into the dms role from time to time and taking control of the game. Nor do I have a particular issue with the dm forcing particular situations. As I said, to me* it’s the mark of a really great player who can incorporate these outside elements and build an even better game. *
> 
> It’s not “less good” at all. It’s all about how you portray your character.




I fully agree with the part in the bold.  But if something is not optional it's not really "great" play, it's just following instructions.

_Really_ great play would be to "incorporate these outside elements" in a non-obvious way that took the story in an unexpected direction.  Hard to do that when you're simply acquiescing.

And I guess that's why I'm ok with players sometimes simply choosing their mechanically preferred outcome: because that freedom also sometimes produces great improvisation.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> How, exactly, am I portraying my character when the DM rolls some dice at me and tells me what my character thinks and does?  I'm portaying nothing -- the DM's portraying my character _for me_ at that moment.  This is the problem.  The DM already has the world and all the NPCs and the rules.  If the DM also can play my character for me, why am I there at all?




That’s just it, no he isn’t. 

He’s telling you that x is true. You believe the lie, you don’t see the ninja, you find the argument very compelling to the point where you agree with it, you are grumpy because you are tired. 

Now, given that information, what do you do?

This massive pile of straw you folks are building doesn’t carry any water. The dm is no more portraying your character for you than hitting you for five damage negates your ability to act.  

There is a huge excluded middle between the dm not being able to say anything about your character and the dm turning you into a puppet.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> That’s just it, no he isn’t.
> 
> He’s telling you that x is true. You believe the lie, you don’t see the ninja, you find the argument very compelling to the point where you agree with it, you are grumpy because you are tired.
> 
> ...



I have had days when i am dogged tired and in great spirits cuz that effort was rewarding.

I have had very complete logical and what most would consider compelling, but which failed to move me one bit cuz i had different priorities.

I have had very skilked pitches expertly arranged, seup and followed thru played to me where i sat actually extremely interested and fascinated - by their techniques, their art of the pitch. The tecniques were easily sufficient to sway many many... And do day after day... So no question they had good bonuses.

But all they did for me was provide tutoring in their approach.

There is a difference between whether i notice something and whether i believe a pitch or agree with a position.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2018)

Totally agree. 

But the game says that you are tired and therefore suffer disadvantage to all skill checks. Interpreting that as grumpy isn’t all that unreasonable. 

The game says that you believe the deception. The game says you don’t see the ninjas. The game says that you find the argument compelling. 

You are not your character. You are trying to role play that character. Which means that that character reacts and acts differently than you do. 

To me, saying “nope, I the player don’t think that therefore that’s what my character thinks/feels” is poor role play. Why bother having a character at all if your just playing yourself in a virtual meat suit?


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Meh, I’m not a huge believer in the divide as I used to be. I have no problems with players stepping into the dms role from time to time and taking control of the game. Nor do I have a particular issue with the dm forcing particular situations. As I said, to me it’s the mark of a really great player who can incorporate these outside elements and build an even better game.
> 
> It’s not “less good” at all. It’s all about how you portray your character.




For the sake of the discussion, say we are going for your NPC diplomancy idea.

Which way do you suggest that you want to play it out?  Is it going to be a DM roll against a DC or would you prefer the PC to make a save against the NPC (either a fixed DC or an opposed roll)?


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So the problem you have with creating realistic characters using DnD rules is alignment?



No. My problem with alignment is that it serves no useful purpose; especially regarding the creation of (realistic) characters. Unfortunately, many players apparently don't realize this and assume choosing an alignment is sufficient as a description of their PC's personality.

Having an alignment system as it is implemented in D&D is worse than having no system at all. Especially considering that D&D is the first RPG for so many players. They will have to unlearn it. They need to realize it's crap and stop thinking in alignment categories. It's quite clear from this thread alone that having been exposed to the alignment system has poisoned the minds of many RPG players. D&D's alignment system is a cancer.

I guess, you should ask me how I really feel about D&D's alignment system, though...


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 18, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> No. My problem with alignment is that it serves no useful purpose; especially regarding the creation of (realistic) characters. Unfortunately, many players apparently don't realize this and assume choosing an alignment is sufficient as a description of their PC's personality.




That seems hardly a problem with the alignment system though.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 18, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> That seems hardly a problem with the alignment system though.



?!!?!
So, if I buy a gadget that's been advertised as something everyone requires and find out later that it serves absolutely no useful purpose and is actually detrimental in certain circumstances, it's a not a problem with the gadget?


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM.



Perhaps you were, but not by me. 

That said, however...


> But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok?  How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?



Proaction vs. reaction.

A Geas or Quest spell is, from the DM side, a _proactive_ way to force a PC to do something without the PC necessarily bringing it on him/herself.  Killing a PC for spitting in the King's face is _reactive_ on the DM's part, as one of several quite plausible and logical responses that the PC has brought upon itself by its own actions.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> For the sake of the discussion, say we are going for your NPC diplomancy idea.
> 
> Which way do you suggest that you want to play it out?  Is it going to be a DM roll against a DC or would you prefer the PC to make a save against the NPC (either a fixed DC or an opposed roll)?




Just a caveat here.  The NPC has made a suggestion (save my daughter) and made a persuasive arguement (diplomacy check).  Which doesn't mean that you have to jump on a horse right now and ride off.  It would mean, though, that you accept that quest, in that example.  Right?  I just want to be pretty clear here what we're actually talking about.  The NPC has made a plausible suggestion (kill your ally is NOT a plausible suggestion) and we're rolling dice.  ((I'm being specific here, because obviously in specific circumstances, there might be all sorts of other issues - maybe the princess is a vampire and the PC is a paladin))  

So, with that in mind, I'd probably just go with the set DC's from the DMG.  It's a pretty plausible suggestion from someone who can quite plausibly make suggestions that are going to get acted on (not that many people tell the king to piss off, at least, not more than once), so, probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of a DC 15.  Pretty decent pass/fail chances.

And, again, just because you are going to go on the quest to save the princess doesn't automatically mean you can't try to get a bigger reward, or something like that.  It's just that, if the NPC is successful, you are going in that direction and your play should reflect that.

/edit to add

I would like to say that the quest example is not a particularly good one.  Let's be honest, if, in the game, you've met the king of the land and he says, "Please save the princess", most players are going to say yes.  Primarily because that's where the adventure is.  It's a pretty dick move by the players if the DM sets this up and the players say, "No, we aren't interested in all that work you just did preparing for tonight's session, we're going to go do something else".  I'd say that most of the time, when the DM presents a pretty clear plot hook like this, most players are good little fishies and bite onto it anyway.  A check likely wouldn't even be needed.  

Yes, yes, I realize that in _your _game (whoever you happens to be) players are 100% free every single session to do whatever they like, but, I'm fairly confident in saying that most tables aren't like that.  The DM has the adventure, whatever the adventure is, and well, as a player I'm not going to turn my nose up at it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Perhaps you were, but not by me.
> 
> That said, however...
> Proaction vs. reaction.
> ...




That's some pretty fine hair splitting.  Do what I want you to do or I'll kill your character isn't really any different at the end of the day than do what I want you to do and I'm going to smack you with some magic to make you do it.  I'm not really going to draw much of a distinction there.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> There is a huge excluded middle between the dm not being able to say anything about your character and the dm turning you into a puppet.



Agreed.

The arguments come because somewhere in that middle many of us also see a point along the spectrum that we don't want crossed.  Problem is, we don't all see that point as being in the same place.



> (1) The game says that you believe the deception. (2) The game says you don’t see the ninjas. (3) The game says that you find the argument compelling.



There's three different things here that should, I posit, be resolved differently.  I've taken the liberty of inserting numbers, for clarity.

1. There's many kinds of deception and thus many ways to resolve them.  If it's an illusion spell or effect then resolve it using whatever save-vs.-spells the game system allows you.  If it's some thiefly sleight of hand then resolve it using whatever thieving mechanics the system has.  But if it's a spoken deception e.g. a lie or misdirection then see point 3.

2. Most if not all systems have mechanics for this hiding-sneaking-perception sort of thing, and though some are better than others it's usually not that hard to figure out; and sometimes the game will say you don't see the ninjas.

3. Unless magic is involved the game should never be allowed to enforce this, and any game whose rules say otherwise needs to have those rules summarily houseruled into nonexistence.  Sure, if out-of-character a player asks the DM "so, just how persuasive is this guy being?" a DM is free to say "yeah, he's pretty comvincing"; but that only informs the player without force and the player can still have her PC tell the King to get lost should doing so be consistent with that PC's usual character.  But otherwise, actual spoken-word roleplaying in person across the table risks being reduced to a numerical dice exercise, which makes me wonder what's the point.

=====

Also to point out: there's nothing at all wrong with a DM suggesting what a PC thinks or feels as part of setting an atmosphere or framing a scene e.g. "As you enter the unholy temple the more goodly among you - such as Aloysius, Bjarnni and Falstaff - feel a definite sense of unease and threat, and the hairs rise on the back of your necks; and Chaundra: as a Cleric to Light you immediately realize this place has retained its evil consecrations."

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2018)

There are a few different ways to think about resolving the situation where _the king asks the PC to rescue his daughter_, and - in the ensuing social resolution process - the GM (for the king) succeeds over the player (for the PC).

(1) The PC receives a buff/augment if carrying out the quest. (This is adapted from how The Riddle of Steel handles its "spiritual attributes'.)

(2) The PC receives a penalty if doing things other than the quest. (This is sort-of how MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic handles it.)

(3) The PC changes his/her _ideal_ to be something like _I will rescue the king's daughter_. (This is a variant on one way Burning Wheel can handle this sort of thing.)

(4) The PC sincerely agrees to help rescue the king's daughter (this is the default outcome of a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel).​
Notice that, consistent with any of these, is

(5) The king, in return, agrees to some request made by the PC (this is typical in a BW DoW).​
A lot of posts in this thread seem to assume that the GM makes a single roll, which, if high enough, means

(6) The PC heads off on the quest.​
But I think that would be a fairly poor mechanic.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 18, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> ?!!?!
> So, if I buy a gadget that's been advertised as something everyone requires and find out later that it serves absolutely no useful purpose and is actually detrimental in certain circumstances, it's a not a problem with the gadget?




What I mean is that the alignment system is not designed to be a replacement personality for your characters. So if players create their characters this way, that is a problem with the player's imagination, not with the rules. 

As for being totally useless, I couldn't disagree more. I think the alignments help get a basic idea of where your character stands in regards to morals and values. For example, whether your character is good, neutral or evil, is already a pretty clear step to defining what kind of character you are going to play. If your character is lawful, then this poses the question in what way your character is lawful? Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong? Or do they follow a personal code? I wouldn't call that useless, but it is just a basis from which to further expand on your character's moral compass.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> There are a few different ways to think about resolving the situation where _the king asks the PC to rescue his daughter_, and - in the ensuing social resolution process - the GM (for the king) succeeds over the player (for the PC).
> 
> (1) The PC receives a buff/augment if carrying out the quest. (This is adapted from how The Riddle of Steel handles its "spiritual attributes'.)
> 
> ...



Both 1 and 4 above can also result from a typical D&D-style game using ordinary persuasion without forced mechanics.  In the case of (1) above the "buff/augment" might not be so much mechanical as either social (this letter will get you access to aid and information in any town or city in my realm) or strategic (I'll send 6 of my own guards to accompany you; they can guard your horses and camp if required, and their presence may open doors that would otherwise remain closed to you).  (4) can result from straight-up roleplaying.



> Notice that, consistent with any of these, is
> 
> (5) The king, in return, agrees to some request made by the PC (this is typical in a BW DoW).​



There's also:

(6) On meeting resistance or objection from the PCs the king ups the ante by proactively offering a special reward or boon on his daughter's safe return.  The PCs might accept this, or might present a counter-offer, which if accepted takes us back up to (5) above.  This again doesn't need to use any hard-coded mechanics.​


> A lot of posts in this thread seem to assume that the GM makes a single roll, which, if high enough, means
> 
> (6) The PC heads off on the quest.​
> But I think that would be a fairly poor mechanic.



It would be, but that's how some would see it working in, say, 3e D&D.

The thing is, mechanics - good or poor - aren't needed for this at all; just in-character negotiation.  

Most reasonable players/PCs would take the mission on, in the fiction either out of altruism or loyalty to the crown or for whatever reward may be in the offing; and at the table because the players want to bite the hook being offered.  That said, the DM still has to be prepared for the party to say "no" for whatever reason, and have a plan B ready if the players/PCs don't suggest a different mission.

For example, combining some scenarios above maybe it all comes down to the PCs saying "Look, Y'r 'Eyeness, those guards you want to send with us - why not send _them_ to rescue Princess Jasmine while _we_ do some investigating and try to find out if the kidnappers are acting on their own or are agents of something bigger.  With luck, what your guards do might draw what we seek out into the open."

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Part of my point is that the discussion in this thread is somewhat distort by excessive focus on 3E's poor social rules.



Lanefan said:


> mechanics - good or poor - aren't needed for this at all; just in-character negotiation.



There are all sorts of things for which mechanics aren't _needed_. The question is whether they might, by some, for some purposes, be _wanted_.



Lanefan said:


> Most reasonable players/PCs would take the mission on, in the fiction either out of altruism or loyalty to the crown or for whatever reward may be in the offing; and at the table because the players want to bite the hook being offered.



This I don't agree with at all. (When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said something similar, he described it as an empirical prediction but didn't use the normative language of _reasonable_.) The whole "hook" model of RPGing is something I don't care for.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 18, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Why would you assume there's no consequences?  Let's assume you do spot in the King's face; sure, maybe you avoid being forced to agree with the DMNPC, but surely you aren't saying that there'd be no consequence for this?
> 
> Your focusing on the mechanical resolution as if ous the crux when is just a tool, and one that shouldn't be used to force player choices.



Please "note," to borrow your own imperative, Ovinomancer, that I have not advocated for forcing player choice. The pressing issue when players argue that their characters should be absolved from _mechanical_ consequences of successful NPC rolls in what we may call "social combat" scenarios. Narrative consequences in any scenario are a given. And this becomes clear in the example that you raise below. 



> And note choices.  Being hit in combat isn't a choice -- the PC is never offered the choice to be hit or not.  But it has a consequence.  So should a NPC pushing and agenda at the player.  If the player chooses to not accept it, there may be consequences for this, even very bad ones, but one shouldn't be "I, as DM who built this NPC, have him overwhelming social souls, picked his agenda, framed this scene, and then forced this check, get to tell you what your character does."  The DM already had lots of Asbury to bring pressure on players, they shouldnt also be able to abuse mechanics you take the one thing player have complete power over -- what choices they make in response.
> 
> If you're going to remove choice, have the decency to just narrate at your players instead of pretending that they actually have options.



So, yes, let us note choices. Your examples here point not to the crux of the problem but cruxes, namely that there are narrative and mechanical consequences at play. The choice, the agency, for both the NPC and PC lies in the decision to engage in combat and how they go about it. They choose their target and how they fight (e.g., weapons, spells, maneuvers, etc.). The PC and NPCs can react and adjust what they do. These are narrative choices. They do not choose to hit. They do not choose to avoid being hit. These things are resolved in dice resolution mechanics. They "hit" and they are "hit" throughout the course of combat. But do note as well that players, particularly in at least 3-5e D&D, do not always have absolute authority over the combat narration of their characters, such that if they say that they are aiming for the eyes, and they hit their target, the eyes themselves are not necessarily what is "hit." The details of combat narration are often abstracted or left open for both GM and player input depending upon table preferences. 

Many social scenarios, IMHO, are a form of combat. And as with combat, there should be _mechanical_ consequences _for PCs_ from a "hit" or a skill success made by NPCs. A successful social "hit" of a PC from an NPC's skill check would not necessarily take the form of "[getting] to tell you what your character does," and this appears to be an absurd extreme case rather than one that would be seen in actual play. As has been acknowledged by others in this thread, those pressing this argument are leaving out a tremendously large healthy middle range of alternative solutions. But a success and a fail for making a mechanical roll should have mechanical consequences and not just narrative ones. Hence my comparison with the invisible impenetrable force field that removes the player from consequences, which I hope you now understand is meant to refer to mechanical consequences, much as being "hit" in the context of combat. 

So to bring back my earlier point, my issue is when an NPC succeeds at "hitting" a PC within the mechanical context of a social scenario but then the PC attempts to render themselves immune from mechanical consequences of that "hit." What that "hit" entails may vary depending upon the system. In Fate Core, for example, players can take Mental Stress (and Consequences) in social combat. And enough stress of any sort, whether physical or mental, can take characters out of play.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 18, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> So to bring back my earlier point, my issue is when an NPC succeeds at "hitting" a PC within the mechanical context of a social scenario but then the PC attempts to render themselves immune from mechanical consequences of that "hit." What that "hit" entails may vary depending upon the system. In Fate Core, for example, players can take Mental Stress (and Consequences) in social combat. And enough stress of any sort, whether physical or mental, can take characters out of play.




I'll note that at least in some systems the mechanics you are describing are not there. In 5e, for example, there is a combat mechanic that says that if you roll above a specific DC you reduce your targets HP by a deterministic amount.

But there's no corollary for social "hitting".  The rule for "Persuasion" does not say specify the result for a success (with exceptions being very clearly defined); really the only conclusion we can draw from a success is that you are persuasive.  Whatever that means.

It would be like having a combat mechanic for attack rolls that didn't specify the damage.  In such a (strange) circumstance I would conclude that the results are meant to be narrated.  But that's exactly the case for social skills in 5e, and other systems.

Now, other systems may have the mechanics you describe, treating social encounters more like combat, and I think it's fair to say that if those mechanics do exist, then a player who wants to render themselves immune are not really following the rules of that game.  As you claim.

I don't think anybody here disagrees with you that it's defying the rules; they/we are just saying that we don't like those mechanics and either wouldn't choose those games or would house-rule the mechanics.

I think the conversation would be most productive if, instead of arguing whether or not it's _breaking_ rules, we discuss the pros and cons of _having_ those rules.


----------



## Hriston (Apr 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'll note that at least in some systems the mechanics you are describing are not there. In 5e, for example, there is a combat mechanic that says that if you roll above a specific DC you reduce your targets HP by a deterministic amount.
> 
> But there's no corollary for social "hitting".  The rule for "Persuasion" does not say specify the result for a success (with exceptions being very clearly defined); really the only conclusion we can draw from a success is that you are persuasive.  Whatever that means.
> 
> ...




I think, in 5e, CHA (skill) checks are the wrong place to look for the equivalent of social "hitting" of PCs. The real action is in the Inspiration mechanic. When an NPC makes an argument that touches on the personality traits, ideal, bond, or flaw of a PC, Inspiration incentivizes the PC's player to make a decision that "portrays" the PC's personal characteristics. For example, if my PC's background is Noble with the bond "I will face any challenge to win the approval of my family," and the king makes the argument that rescuing his daughter will show that my PC is worthy of his family's approval, the mechanical benefit to me, as a player, aligns with my PC pursuing his own interests in the situation, and to disagree would be to leave Inspiration for my PC on the table. If, on the other hand, the king's argument doesn't speak to any of my PC's personal characteristics, then what reason would my PC have for agreeing to go along?


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I think the conversation would be most productive if, instead of arguing whether or not it's _breaking_ rules, we discuss the pros and cons of _having_ those rules.



This has been my impression of what we were doing. However, as this is a forum dedicated primarily to D&D (and its prevailing current system), 5e (and D&D more broadly) tends to dominate that conversation and the core assumptions of many discussions. 



> I don't think anybody here disagrees with you that it's defying the rules; they/we are just saying that we don't like those mechanics and either wouldn't choose those games or would house-rule the mechanics.



I would think that someone with your own preferences would actually like how Fate handles this. It is up to the player to select how they take the mental stress or consequences. If they choose, for example, to take a Mild Consequence (-2) rather than the equivalent of a 2 stress box for a social contest, then they can name an Aspect that represents what happened with their character and the narrative: e.g., Royally Shamed, Riled to Anger, Dericisively Mocked, Scorned into Silence, etc. This is all player-facing. 



> I'll note that at least in some systems the mechanics you are describing are not there. In 5e, for example, there is a combat mechanic that says that if you roll above a specific DC you reduce your targets HP by a deterministic amount.
> 
> But there's no corollary for social "hitting".  The rule for "Persuasion" does not say specify the result for a success (with exceptions being very clearly defined); really the only conclusion we can draw from a success is that you are persuasive.  Whatever that means.



Of course, but my point here is that rolls should also have some measure of mechanical consequences. And that opinion is obviously my own sense of _should_ rather than _is_, largely because the "is" is incohesive. 

For example, in 5e or PF we may ask here what does a successful Persuasion/Diplomacy check communicate or achieve? This answer should ideally be the same for both a Player Character and a Non-Player Character, as their respective Player Agents can both roll skills in the capacity of those characters. If it achieves nothing, then why roll? If there is no point rolling because the roll has no mechano-narratival weight, then why does this skill exist? And there is, IMHO, a compelling reason why the skill exists: gaps exist between player ability and player character ability. A player is not obligated to sucessfully convince a GM that they hit, nor the GM that their NPC hit the PC. There are mechanics to resolve that issue. Likewise, the inhabited character may have a higher degree of diplomatic profiency than the player-who-inhabits-the-character. That gap can create a frustrating dissonance between player and character. Social skills exist, to some degree, as a mechanical means to empower and reinforce unpersuasive players roleplaying persuasive characters to inhabit their character without relying strictly on GM fiat. But this again takes us back to an earlier question: what then does a successful Persuasion check achieve mechanically? And why can't this apply to PCs just as it does to NPCs? 

Likewise, for some people, players who exceed the DC of a Persuasion/Deception check will automatically successfully persuade/deceive the subject in question. Or there are people who will refuse the results of a Deception/Bluff check made by one PC against another because "my character wouldn't believe that" despite the success of the one player and the failure of the other in this contest of rolls. But without mechanical rules to govern this, these sort of things can devolve into a childhood brawl of "you didn't hit me with your laser, because I had my impentrable force field on that blocks lasers" scenarios that I mentioned earlier. It can turn players into sore losers who reject a reality that applies to them what they apply to others in the fictive space. No character wants to be deceived, and if a player knows that another player is lying, they will go out of their way to rationalize why their character could not possibly believe the Deception/Bluff. 

This is, in part, the benefit of having rules apply equally to NPCs and PCs, because the same mechanics that could resolve NPC on PC skill check issues are often the same that help resolve PC on PC issues. 



> It would be like having a combat mechanic for attack rolls that didn't specify the damage.  In such a (strange) circumstance I would conclude that the results are meant to be narrated.  But that's exactly the case for social skills in 5e, and other systems.



Though I am sure that some are tired of me discussing Fate, I find the system to be a useful counterexample to D&D, much as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is want to use Burning Wheel or Cortex Plus as alternative examples of how they resolve similar issues. In this matter, I will say that Fate technically does not have "damage." Neither mental nor physical stress in Fate reflect "damage" or even being "hit." Stress instead is a pacing mechanic. Though here I will post an excerpt from collected Fate musings of The Book of Hanz: 


> But Stress isn't damage - it's a pacing measure, a way of determining how close someone is to being Taken Out. And succeeding on an Attack doesn't mean you
> hit, and tying, or even losing, on the Attack doesn't mean you don't hit (though that's usually a good bet). Again, Fate doesn't tell you what happens, it just places constraints on the narration.



Though this primarily is talking about physical stress, this can also apply to mental/social stress. The point being expressed here (and expounded more elucidly) that "hitting" and "damage" are less important in Fate than the character's ability to withstand narrative stress in a scene.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Maybe 'backsliding' is an unfairly easy thing to hang on a game that set out, explicitly, and continually re-affirmed throughout it's playtest, the goal if evoking the classic game.
> 
> But, it is certainly going back to the 9-alignment system, and some mechanical impact, from a simpler/more intuitive (CG, LE, CN, LN, & TN having each thrown some folks) one with less mechanical impact.




Backsliding has a negative connotation and that is what I was disagreeing with. 

Whether or not it's more intuitive or simpler will vary by person. 



Tony Vargas said:


> 9 alignments is the middle ground between 9 alignments and no alignments?  Wouldn't 4.5 be the mid-point.  ;P
> 
> Seriously, though, it's fine to note that alignment has not been returned to nearly the invasive mechanical bugaboo it was in the classic game.  Just don't kid anyone 5e 'reduced' that impact, anymore than it nerfed casters relative to the preceding edition.
> 
> 5e is very much a compromise edition, so for any given horrendous D&Dism it's typically better than the worst offender, but that doesn't mean 5e, itself fixed the issue, just that it didn't restore it fully relative to the version that did.




I'm not attempting to kid anyone. I don't really care about what went on in the preceding edition. 



Tony Vargas said:


> My observation, from when the mechanical impact of alignment was removed, 6 years before 5e hit the shelves, was that it made players more inclined to play 'unaligned' characters, as they were more open to a range of personality & motivation, since there was no benefit to playing the more prescriptive alignments.  It also helped that the alignments were fewer and more intuituve, there was no confusion over seemingly (to brand-new players) 'contradictory' alignments like CG or LE, nor temptation to use CN as an excuse for disruptive behavior...




Meh. Unaligned is simply Neutral with a different name.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> That’s just it, no he isn’t.
> 
> He’s telling you that x is true. You believe the lie, you don’t see the ninja, you find the argument very compelling to the point where you agree with it, you are grumpy because you are tired.
> 
> ...




I think that the DM telling you not that an argument is compelling, but that your character is swayed by the argument, leans more toward the puppet end of that spectrum. I'd be annoyed with it, and I don't do that to players when I DM. I just feel there are too many holes in this approach.

I will make the argument compelling if that's what I hope for. I'll let the players make Insight or whatever relevant skill check to see if they think the NPC is lying or anything like that. I'll give the player some information and then let them decide how their character feels. 

Again, I think this is because no matter how compelling an argument can be made, people can still hear it and say "I don't care". Look at how many people smoke or eat McDonald's or do any other self destructive behavior. They have heard compelling arguments which they know to be true and they've chosen to ignore them. 

Under your view of the rules, how do you allow for this phenomenon? 

Also, how do you allow for different people to respond differently to the same compelling speech? if the result is based entirely on the roll for the NPC's speech, then if it's high, is everyone persuaded? Do you allow for different DCs for each listener? Seems needlessly cumbersome.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Whether or not it's more intuitive or simpler will vary by person.



 Particularly in the subjective sense, and by past experiences and expectations.  Something familiar seems more intuitive and simpler than something new, even if, objectively, they're the /same/ thing, viewed from different perspectives.  D&D is very complex, but the more you play it, the less you notice that complexity.  Similarly, D&D deviates radically from many of it's sources of inspiration, so if you come into it with expectations formed from those same sources, it'll seem less intuitive than if you come to it with expectations shaped by past editions of the same game, or by, say CRPGs or MMOs - or fiction based on them - that cribbed heavily from D&D, themselves.



> I'm not attempting to kid anyone. I don't really care about what went on in the preceding edition.



 Your level of concern or knowledge of past editions doesn't change the facts.  If you present 5e as having 'done' something for the first time that a past edition actually did first - and took further - you are simply wrong.  I accept your explanation for the mistake you made, but it does not change the facts.  



> Meh. Unaligned is simply Neutral with a different name.



It's more like neutral simplified.  In the classic game, 'Neutral' represented the rarefied philosophy of maintaining global moral/ethical balance in the broader world - typified by Druids - but also represented individuals who had no such philosophy, merely no strong commitment to any moral or ethical extreme, /and/ also those creatures that lacked the faculties to engage in morals & ethics in the first place (like animals).  At various times, these were called 'Neutral' or 'True Neutral' or given parenthetical 'tendencies,' or characterized as lacking alignment.  TN, in particular, could be unintuitive to those uninitiated into the inner mysteries of the 9-alignment system.  And, mechanically, the balanced-committed Druid and the non-committal everyman - and the donkey they rode in on - were zapped the same by alignment-based gotchyas.  
Unaligned, OTOH, was simply opting out of the already simplified other 4 alignments (LG, G, E, & CE), if a player happened to envision something like LN or CN or TN, it'd fall under that, as would any more intuitive/realistic/complex outlook & set of motivations.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think that the DM telling you not that an argument is compelling, but that your character is swayed by the argument, leans more toward the puppet end of that spectrum. I'd be annoyed with it, and I don't do that to players when I DM. I just feel there are too many holes in this approach.



 There's an innate problem with a game having a skill like 'Persuasion' in the first place, I suppose.  Earlier versions of D&D didn't have it, IIRC.  Diplomacy in 3.5 mechanically shifted attitudes, for instance, the Diplomancer could make an openly hostile enemy 'Helpful,' instead, but he couldn't use that helpfulness to get the target to do things it was unalterably opposed to doing - a helpful thief will steal from you, a helpful Paladin take on a dragon for you, the reverse is unlikely.   In 4e Diplomacy was simply dealing honestly in a negotiation (as opposed to Bluff), and any more meaningful/important negotiation would likely be a Skill Challenge, for the party, which means they wouldn't be being diplomasized into doing something, but would be trying to achieve a given goal going into it.



pemerton said:


> Part of my point is that the discussion in this thread is somewhat distort by excessive focus on 3E's poor social rules.



 Hey, at least 3e didn't actually have a 'Persuade' skill.



hawkeyefan said:


> I will make the argument compelling if that's what I hope for. I'll let the players make Insight or whatever relevant skill check to see if they think the NPC is lying or anything like that. I'll give the player some information and then let them decide how their character feels.



 Nod:  a compromise between modelling the abilities of the characters in question and using those of the DM/players in their place.



> Again, I think this is because no matter how compelling an argument can be made, people can still hear it and say "I don't care". Look at how many people smoke or eat McDonald's or do any other self destructive behavior. They have heard compelling arguments which they know to be true and they've chosen to ignore them.
> Under your view of the rules, how do you allow for this phenomenon?



 Psychological limitations, flaws that model addiction, and willpower as a limited, player managed resource, are some ways games have dealt with those sorts of things in the past - as early as 1981, now that I think of it.  In that sense, D&D is still a 70's RPG, and maybe not the best example of mechanics supporting player agency....


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Particularly in the subjective sense, and by past experiences and expectations.  Something familiar seems more intuitive and simpler than something new, even if, objectively, they're the /same/ thing, viewed from different perspectives.  D&D is very complex, but the more you play it, the less you notice that complexity.  Similarly, D&D deviates radically from many of it's sources of inspiration, so if you come into it with expectations formed from those same sources, it'll seem less intuitive than if you come to it with expectations shaped by past editions of the same game, or by, say CRPGs or MMOs - or fiction based on them - that cribbed heavily from D&D, themselves.




Sure, I agree with that. 

But honestly, I don't think the addition of the word Chaotic or Lawful really muddies things all that much. My 8 year old self was able to suss it out pretty easily, and I wasn't some kind of prodigy. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Your level of concern or knowledge of past editions doesn't change the facts.  If you present 5e as having 'done' something for the first time that a past edition actually did first - and took further - you are simply wrong.  I accept your explanation for the mistake you made, but it does not change the facts.




No, I don't think I made a mistake. I made a general statement about what 5E does in contrast with some past editions of the game, notably 3E and derivatives based on the Diplomacy discussion. What I didn't do was say that it was first, which seems to be the issue you have with my comment. I am not claiming it was first. I just said that it does something I like. 

If that happened in 4E first, that's fine. But irrelevant to my point. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It's more like neutral simplified.  In the classic game, 'Neutral' represented the rarefied philosophy of maintaining global moral/ethical balance in the broader world - typified by Druids - but also represented individuals who had no such philosophy, merely no strong commitment to any moral or ethical extreme, /and/ also those creatures that lacked the faculties to engage in morals & ethics in the first place (like animals).  At various times, these were called 'Neutral' or 'True Neutral' or given parenthetical 'tendencies,' or characterized as lacking alignment.  TN, in particular, could be unintuitive to those uninitiated into the inner mysteries of the 9-alignment system.  And, mechanically, the balanced-committed Druid and the non-committal everyman - and the donkey they rode in on - were zapped the same by alignment-based gotchyas.
> Unaligned, OTOH, was simply opting out of the already simplified other 4 alignments (LG, G, E, & CE), if a player happened to envision something like LN or CN or TN, it'd fall under that, as would any more intuitive/realistic/complex outlook & set of motivations.




If you were going to convert a 4E character who was unaligned to 5E, what alignment would you make him? 

I get the distinction you're making about Neutral being devoted to the balance like a Druid, or about it being not devoted to any ethos like a simple animal, but I look at Unaligned as covering the same category. 

I suppose Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral maybe muddied things a bit, but again, I was able to grasp it at 8, so it's hard for me to really think of this as too complex. 



Tony Vargas said:


> There's an innate problem with a game having a skill like 'Persuasion' in the first place, I suppose.  Earlier versions of D&D didn't have it, IIRC.  Diplomacy in 3.5 mechanically shifted attitudes, for instance, the Diplomancer could make an openly hostile enemy 'Helpful,' instead, but he couldn't use that helpfulness to get the target to do things it was unalterably opposed to doing - a helpful thief will steal from you, a helpful Paladin take on a dragon for you, the reverse is unlikely.   In 4e Diplomacy was simply dealing honestly in a negotiation (as opposed to Bluff), and any more meaningful/important negotiation would likely be a Skill Challenge, for the party, which means they wouldn't be being diplomasized into doing something, but would be trying to achieve a given goal going into it.




Yeah, I hated the way skills were so heavily codified in 3E and its versions, and that's a big part of what I've been talking about in my posts. I like the way 5E functions in this regard. I realize it's a bit vague, but to me that makes it flexible for multiple approaches. 

So for me, in the case of an NPC making a compelling argument for some course of action on the part of the PCs, I prefer to focus on player actions to add information for them to make a decision rather than have an NPC action make or strongly influence their decision. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Nod:  a compromise between modelling the abilities of the characters in question and using those of the DM/players in their place.




Mostly, but it's situational. 

On the part of the NPC, the DM can make what he thinks is a compelling argument by the NPC, or he can make a weak argument. Although it certainly is possible for him to make one or the other depending on a roll. So if he rolls a Persuasion check, and the result is high, he can make a strong argument, and if the result is low, he can make a weak argument. 

But for me, the PCs can use their skill checks to help them gather information. "Is he lying?" make an insight check, and the like. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Psychological limitations, flaws that model addiction, and willpower as a limited, player managed resource, are some ways games have dealt with those sorts of things in the past - as early as 1981, now that I think of it.  In that sense, D&D is still a 70's RPG, and maybe not the best example of mechanics supporting player agency....




I don't think I'm saying that the mechanics support player agency, so much as I'm saying that I prefer that the mechanics in question don't limit that agency. I prefer for players to make decisions about what their characters say, think, or do in all but the most extreme circumstances.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, I agree with that.
> 
> But honestly, I don't think the addition of the word Chaotic or Lawful really muddies things all that much.



 Obviously, it's not just the word but the grid they define, and the moral/ethical gymnastics D&D has used with them.



> but again, I was able to grasp it at 8, so it's hard for me to really think of this as too complex.



 Yeah, yeah, imply anyone noting the complexity is a moron.  Classy.  
Really, though when you're 8, you're blithely able to accept and internalize questionable concepts, and for the rest of your life it seems simple & crystal clear & obvious truth.  I suppose you're lucky it was D&D alignment and not some freaky religious dogma or divisive political agenda or something...



> No, I don't think I made a mistake. I made a general statement about what 5E does in contrast with some past editions of the game, notably 3E and derivatives based on the Diplomacy discussion. What I didn't do was say that it was first, which seems to be the issue you have with my comment.



 Yep, you said 'now' and contrasted that with past editions, that implies both first & only, when neither is true.  If you want to be accurate, you could note that 5e hasn't gone back to the degree of mechanical entanglement with alignment of the classic game, even though it's returned to the same 9-alignment system.



> If that happened in 4E first, that's fine. But irrelevant to my point.



 Unfortunately your statement went beyond the point you were trying to make.



> If you were going to convert a 4E character who was unaligned to 5E, what alignment would you make him?



 Depends on the character, he might convert neatly to LN or CN or TN, or muddily to neutral, or he might be impractical to model in the 9-alignment system.  Really, though, it might well be the least of the issues involved in such a conversion... 



> Yeah, I hated the way skills were so heavily codified in 3E and its versions, and that's a big part of what I've been talking about in my posts. I like the way 5E functions in this regard. I realize it's a bit vague, but to me that makes it flexible for multiple approaches.



 Sure, and one of the approaches it enables is for the DM to strip away what folks are calling 'player agency,' by narrating a result of an NPC's CHA (Persuasion) check.  I don't think it's a great way to narrate a result. 







> But for me, the PCs can use their skill checks to help them gather information. "Is he lying?" make an insight check, and the like.



  My preference, as well.  I don't think DMs should often roll such checks for NPCs in the first place, but should focus on resolving player actions - so not 'The Duke nails a Persuasion check on you,' but rather calling for a check from the PC whose player asks if the Duke is dealing honestly or if it seems like a reasonable request, or whatever it is the player ends up asking or declaring as an action... ).  

But the DM is Empowered to lay track if he wants to.  



> On the part of the NPC, the DM can make what he thinks is a compelling argument by the NPC, or he can make a weak argument. Although it certainly is possible for him to make one or the other depending on a roll. So if he rolls a Persuasion check, and the result is high, he can make a strong argument, and if the result is low, he can make a weak argument.



 Nod, and the players can respond to it in unexpected/inappropriate-seeming ways, because the DM may not be nearly as persuasive as he thinks he's being, to certain of the players. 



> I don't think I'm saying that the mechanics support player agency, so much as I'm saying that I prefer that the mechanics in question don't limit that agency. I prefer for players to make decisions about what their characters say, think, or do in all but the most extreme circumstances.



In 5e, specifically, the DM is Empowered to support or undercut player agency as he sees fit.  A conscientious DM might always do the former, a bad one the latter, but a really good one, IMHO, will consistently present the appearance of the former, while judiciously doing the latter when it's best for the campaign & the player experience.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 18, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Please "note," to borrow your own imperative, Ovinomancer, that I have not advocated for forcing player choice. The pressing issue when players argue that their characters should be absolved from _mechanical_ consequences of successful NPC rolls in what we may call "social combat" scenarios. Narrative consequences in any scenario are a given. And this becomes clear in the example that you raise below.
> 
> So, yes, let us note choices. Your examples here point not to the crux of the problem but cruxes, namely that there are narrative and mechanical consequences at play. The choice, the agency, for both the NPC and PC lies in the decision to engage in combat and how they go about it. They choose their target and how they fight (e.g., weapons, spells, maneuvers, etc.). The PC and NPCs can react and adjust what they do. These are narrative choices. They do not choose to hit. They do not choose to avoid being hit. These things are resolved in dice resolution mechanics. They "hit" and they are "hit" throughout the course of combat. But do note as well that players, particularly in at least 3-5e D&D, do not always have absolute authority over the combat narration of their characters, such that if they say that they are aiming for the eyes, and they hit their target, the eyes themselves are not necessarily what is "hit." The details of combat narration are often abstracted or left open for both GM and player input depending upon table preferences.
> 
> ...




Never did I figure that my use of "note" would draw such a keen reaction.  I was merely stating a clarification on my statement it wouldn't be taken in an unintended manner.

That said, and ignoring that you say narrative consequences are a given after asking if players can just declare force-field to negate narrative consequences, there's some things we agree on here and some we don't.  Primarily on the "don't" side is that NPC and PCs are equivalent structures and should be impacted by mechanics in the same way.  They should not, and aren't, even in the systems you're referencing (Cortex+, Fate, etc.).

First and foremost, there's a keen difference between an NPC and a PC, and that's represented in the DM/player role distribution.  This distribution varies across game systems and styles, but, generally, the DM has the duty of framing scenes and presenting backstory and the player has the duty of declaring actions within the scene.  Systems differ on the resolution, be it subject to DM review or only mechanical resolution, but regardless of where on that spectrum the DM usually retains the power to narrate the results according to the resolution method.  This feeds back into the frame/declare/resolve paradigm.  This is broadly true in 5e, 4e, 3e, Cortex+, PbtA, etc.  The DM frames, the player acts, and the situation resolves.  I'm intentionally ignoring games where the players can frame or where there's large amount of narrative sharing between player because those really don't use mechanics like what we're talking about here for resolution of conflicts.  There's some, but they're niche and not broadly applicable.

That being said, the difference between PCs and NPC becomes more clear because of the positions they occupy in the above.  To clarify, the difference is that NPC action declaration break the frame/act/resolve paradigm because now the entirety of the resolution is on the DM side of the equation -- the NPC is standing in for the player in the act portion and this means that the DM now has authority to frame and declare the action (and thereby exert disproportionate force on the resolution by dint of perfect knowledge of the variables).  The player is without choice in the matter.  This is fine, for narration, but making this process appear to be gameplay is a farce.  This is clear in 5e play, if you assume Diplomacy single checks can force PC actions -- the DM sets the stage for the scene, introduces the challenge, has the NPC declare actions to resolve the challenge, and then narrates the results to the players.  No room for the players, here.

In other systems, with more robust social combat mechanics, it's fine, though, but that's not because we're accepting that the mechanics affect players and NPCs the same (they don't), but because those systems have built in choice mechanics for the players to exercise.  The process is the same -- the DM frames a scene with a social challenge, the PCs elect actions to counter/mitigate that challenge, and then the resolution occurs and the results are presented.  Even then, most of these system have a fourth step which again allows the players to bring PC resources to bear to mitigate the challenge.  Regardless, the stakes for the challenge are set and the PCs then have choices on how they are going to resist the challenge.  For instance, if the scene is set for the King to try to persuade the PCs to undertake a quest, that challenge is framed with clear stakes -- what happens if either side wins -- and the players are free to add resources to modify that challenge or avoid it or mitigate it.  Then, once all those resources are declared and the final stakes are set, the resolution mechanics kick in.  The player has already had many choices on the issue, so they aren't at the whim of the DM like in the 5e example.  Even if the resolution goes against the players, most of these systems have options to accept a different cost rather than acceeding to the resolution (mental stess is Fate's, stress is how Blades in the Dark does it, etc.).  This kind of play leave player choice intact and has the players accepting the stakes of the contest before rolling.  It differs from the 5e example because of these aspects -- the system Fate uses explicitly hedges against removing player choices about how mechanics work even while using those mechanics to increase drama and create story.  It's well done.

But, to return to the difference between PCs and NPCs, the NPCs don't have the same levels of resources or even the same options on how to expend resources that the PCs do.  NPCs are bound tightly to the resolution, and rarely have the ability to swap to a different costing to avoid the resolution.  This is because the point of the NPCs is not to be the focus of the story, but to aid in telling the story.  

And that's the key, for me -- PCs are the ONLY way the players interact with the game.  NPCs are one of many many authorities that the DM controls for the game.  Claiming that PCs must be susceptible to the same mechanics as NPCs is saying that the PCs are unimportant in the game, because there are so many more NPCs and the DM has 100% control of them all.  Rather, I subscribe to the idea that NPCs are just a tool to frame scenes for the game and are there to provide foils to the PCs, not usurp them.  The Prince that wants his daughter rescued is a challenge to the PCs, not a controller of them.  If the PCs decide this isn't a challenge they care for, why am I going to force them to go along using a mechanic when it's clear that the players don't want to do that?  Do I, as DM, have the right to decide what the players want to play?  Rhetorical questions, my answers are 'I wouldn't, that's bad' and 'No, I do not.'

 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s statement that it's rude of the players to ignore what the DM has prepped by trying to ignore the hook and so he's justified in using mechanics to force them to bite the hook is a social contract problem being addressed in the game -- he should, instead, be talking to his players as players and finding out what assumption mismatches are going on at the table instead of relying on his ability to force a check and tell the players what they're going to play.  This is basic game social interaction 101 -- deal with player problems directly with the players and not in the game.

And, again, as a note (heh), I used to be on the 'NPCs and PCs should be subject to the mechanics equally' side of this.  I came around when I realized that my real issue was trying to recover from failure points in game.  If I had a great scenario lined up but it hinged on the PCs taking the quest, and, for whatever reason, I did a bad job selling it, then I was out time and had no prep.  So, I thought it should be right that the NPCs should be able to lie/convince/whatever using mechanics because it rescued my plot.  But, it led to increased reluctance on the player's part to go along.  So, I stopped doing it.  And, in a fit of mental dissonance, I still ascribed to the idea that mechanics were a level field even as I ceased actually playing that way and avoided it like the plague.  It was a discussion here, with @Iserth (which got heated), that I finally recognized that I was arguing for a position I didn't agree with anymore (and that some time after that thread).  I got to thinking, and realized that there's a huge power mismatch in using mechanics against PCs in the same way they're used against NPCs, and that I didn't agree with that power mismatch and, further, I wasn't playing that way anymore either.  So, yeah, just taking a moment to point out that I fully understand the position you're taking, I've held it, and I've since rejected it.

ON a different note, I believe you asked what's the point of NPC skills if they aren't used against PCs.  That's easy.  They are used against PCs, but only in to set DCs and/or contested checks.   They're also useful against other NPCs.  If, for instance, I have a group of orcs that the party is facing, and the party barbarian attempts to intimidate the orcs, then I'm going to use their WIS saves as a DC.  Let's say the orcs fail as a group, but their leader, an orog, succeeds.  The orog can then attempt to regain control of the orcs by using his intimidate to try to convince them other orcs that he's the scarier of the two.  This isn't something I think I is uncertain as a DM, so I'll roll the Orog's intimidate against the orcs.  Results can vary - a failure means the orcs back down, a success means the orcs attack (or whatever).  Optionally, I can declare that the orog leader is going to try to rebut the barbarian's attempt directly and have them roll opposed Intimidates to determine who's more successful.

Diplomacy is an excellent skill for the spurned Prince to use after the players refuse to rescue his daughter.  A roll sets a nice DC that the players will now have to overcome to receive any aid from anyone that knows of the Prince's displeasure with the party.  Want to buy some horses?  You get to contend with the Prince's diplomacy roll as the Stable owner read the proclamation the Prince sent out declaring the party non-grata.  Is the stable owner more concerned with helping you, even though he likes you, or with not being seen going against the Prince?

NPC skills are great, and very useful, even if I'll never initiate a roll against PCs that the PCs will be bound to.  It will always be as a DC or opposed roll to what the PCs are trying to do.  This goes for the ninjas, too -- the PCs set the circumstance as to how they're keeping watch and I test that against the ninja's stealth skill.  If the ninja succeeds, the next framing will have them at an advantage.  If they fail, the PCs get the advantage.  I don't need to tell the players what their PCs think or do, I just need to present the new framing with the new situation.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In 5e, specifically, the DM is Empowered to support or undercut player agency as he sees fit.  A conscientious DM might always do the former, a bad one the latter, but a really good one, IMHO, will consistently present the appearance of the former, while judiciously doing the latter when it's best for the campaign & the player experience.




I disagree.   The presented play procedures are as @Iserth keeps repeating:  the DM narrates a scene, the players declare actions, the DM resolves the actions (via mechanics or declaration) and narrates the results.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  The amount of DM Empowerment is in the first and last parts, not the middle part.  The players get the freedom to declare actions however they wish.  They may declare impossible actions, to which the DM narrates failure, but the DM shouldn't be choosing player actions.

As for deciding what's best for the campaign and the player experience, under what metric is the DM determining this?  What means does he use to divine this truth?  What guidelines are there for adjudicating questions about what's best?

All rhetorical questions, to which I answer: there's nothing special about the DM that gives them special insight into what's best for the players.  Yes, they have authorities _in the game_ that surpass the player authorities, but this doesn't extend to the social contract at the table.  If the players cede this authority, well and good, it's decided by that table, but the game does not empower the role of DM with special perception and wisdom to create the best possible game.  It's far better to let the play at the table, without hidden superceding of player agency, let the game become awesome that imagine that DM's have special abilities to know when this infringement of agency will ultimately lead to a better outcome.  I'm honestly staggered by the apparently unaware hubris of this statement.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree.   The presented play procedures are as @Iserth keeps repeating:  the DM narrates a scene, the players declare actions, the DM resolves the actions (via mechanics or declaration) and narrates the results.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  The amount of DM Empowerment is in the first and last parts, not the middle part.  The players get the freedom to declare actions however they wish.



 Sure, but depending on the first and last parts, the middle part may or may not entail actual agency.  If the players' declared actions make no difference to the resolution, for instance, or if the scene gives them only one viable choice.  Yet 'depriving them of agency' like that may be critical to keeping the campaign on track and/or the experience 'immersive,' or whatever else it might be the table values that the game couldn't deliver by itself, at that point.



> As for deciding what's best for the campaign and the player experience, under what metric is the DM determining this?



 I'm not aware of an objective metric, but it's not /that/ hard (also not as easy as one might think) to tell if players in a campaign are generally finding it fun or not.   







> What means does he use to divine this truth?



 Experience as a player & DM, of course - decades of it, in some cases. 







> What guidelines are there for adjudicating questions about what's best?



 No good one's I've ever seen.  DMs must exercise their own judgement in these matters.  It's what separates RPGs from boardgames and MMOs and the like, where there's no DM -  a DM can adapt to the circumstances and the players, a boardgame is just the rules & the board it is what it is, an MMO is just it's programming until the next update.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Part of my point is that the discussion in this thread is somewhat distort by excessive focus on 3E's poor social rules.



Likely because while earlier versions of D&D (i.e. the game most familiar to most people) had some vague and easily-ignored attempts at social rules (e.g. morale), 3e was the first time they were both hard-coded and pushed to the fore.  Thus, 3e's social rules by default became both the benchmark then and the go-to example ever since.



> There are all sorts of things for which mechanics aren't _needed_. The question is whether they might, by some, for some purposes, be _wanted_.



Perhaps, but in this particular case (social negotiation) there's no legitimate reason to want them either.  Short-cutting or skipping actual spoken-word roleplay; jumping to the end of the scene rather than talking through a stalemate; a desire to force PCs (or NPCs, for all that) to be "persuaded" where their free will might go otherwise: none of these are legitimate reasons for social mechanics in any way, and any who say otherwise are also strongly implying the value they place on the "RP" part of RPG: little to none.  



> This I don't agree with at all. (When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said something similar, he described it as an empirical prediction but didn't use the normative language of _reasonable_.) The whole "hook" model of RPGing is something I don't care for.



Which puts you greatly in the minority, I think.

This point recently came up in another thread - I forget which one - in that if the DM offers a hook (a common enough occurrence) the players will often take it up out of sheer courtesy to the DM, in recognition of the work she's put in to preparing whatever it is she's trying to hook you into.  Reversing this, a DM will often more or less tailor her hooks to suit the known interests of the players - e.g. if she knows she's got a couple of players interested in maritime adventuring she's more likely to set hooks toward maritime adventures than if she knows her players are interested in straight dungeon-crawling or courtly intrigue.

And if she doesn't know her players' interests - or is aware those interests are subject to change on a more or less frequent basis - she drops a series of different hooks leading to different adventures and sees what comes of it.

This is one area where I might not do well in a story-now type of game: what interests me now and thus goes on my sheet as goals-beliefs-whatever might bore me to tears after a few months...I don't want to be bound to those interests - or even that character - for the duration of the campaign. (and if the duration of the campaign itself is only a few months why did I bother playing in it in the first place)  I'd rather play out the story of the party as said story - and party - changes and morphs and develops over the long term.

Lan-"the story of the party is and always must be bigger than the sum of the stories of the individual characters"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree.   The presented play procedures are as @Iserth keeps repeating:  the DM narrates a scene, the players declare actions, the DM resolves the actions (via mechanics or declaration) and narrates the results.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  The amount of DM Empowerment is in the first and last parts, not the middle part.  The players get the freedom to declare actions however they wish.  They may declare impossible actions, to which the DM narrates failure, but the DM shouldn't be choosing player actions.



Agreed.



> As for deciding what's best for the campaign and the player experience, under what metric is the DM determining this?  What means does he use to divine this truth?  What guidelines are there for adjudicating questions about what's best?



Usually, she's using her knowledge of what her players' interests are, and of what her own interests are (no rational DM is going to run a game she's not herself interested in).  After that there's usually a lot of trial and error involved on both sides of the screen, which builds experience; and to get it right sometimes you have to first get it wrong so you know what wrong looks like.

As for PCs and NPCs using the same mechanics as far as possible: I still lean this way.  PCs are special-snowflake enough already, no need to make it any worse. 

But instead of having mechanics that apply to NPCs also apply to PCs (e.g. Diplomacy), which runs into obvious problems with player agency, the answer is to remove those mechanics so they don't apply to anyone.

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> But instead of having mechanics that apply to NPCs also apply to PCs (e.g. Diplomacy), which runs into obvious problems with player agency, the answer is to remove those mechanics so they don't apply to anyone.



 Thing is, if you still have scenes that would have called for those mechanics, you haven't removed them, you've replaced them - with DM fiat if the scenes are narrated without player input, or with player ability taking the place of character ability if you "role play through it."  In the former case, you lose player agency, in the latter you lose modeling of the characters.

And, if you don't have such scenes, you've cut out half the game.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> And, if you don't have such scenes, you've cut out half the game.




That doesn't leave a very large slice of the pie for Exploration...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> That doesn't leave a very large slice of the pie for Exploration...



 I'd guestimate about same 1/3rd proportion it had before cutting out anything that might be construed as thinking/feeling for a PC and/or treating PCs & NPCs differently, just the other 2/3rds'd be combat, since Social would be gone, and combat should lose a lot less than exploration.  Maybe it'd even be half & half in a given campaign....  

...but, yeah, Lanefan was prettymuch talking about winding back the clock to early 1e, before there was anything much resembling skills outside the Thief class.


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 19, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I think, in 5e, CHA (skill) checks are the wrong place to look for the equivalent of social "hitting" of PCs. The real action is in the Inspiration mechanic. When an NPC makes an argument that touches on the personality traits, ideal, bond, or flaw of a PC, Inspiration incentivizes the PC's player to make a decision that "portrays" the PC's personal characteristics.




That's what I said!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Unaligned is simply Neutral with a different name.



I think that _unaligned_ correlates fairly closely to _neutral_ in the OD&D and B/X system.

But in AD&D (at least 1st ed), _true neutral_ is something a bit different (DMG p 23; pHB p 33):

Absolute, or true, neutral creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary part or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order far chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this naturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened.

The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law
- of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.​
So true neutral, in AD&D, is a "naturalistic ethos" which holds that all is as it is meant to be, with each facet of life contributing to that overall balance - provided that humans and their ilk don't disturb the balance through their attempts to change things (which cannot have any long-lasting effect).

This is _not _unaligned, but more like the outlook of some realworld philosophies and religions - stoicism, for instance - and also some political movements - eg Burkean conservatism.

The Han Solo-type scoundrel, who in 4e is unaligned and in OD&D or B/X is neutral, in AD&D I think is chaotic neutral: they prioritise their own self-realisation over other-regarding moral obligations.

EDIT: I see [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] made a similar point to this upthread.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The arguments come because somewhere in that middle many of us also see a point along the spectrum that we don't want crossed.  Problem is, we don't all see that point as being in the same place.
> ...
> ...




So much for an excluded middle.  That's not finding a point along the spectrum that you don't want crossed, that's saying that it is a binary situation and the game should never be allowed to enforce things.

I obviously disagree.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, yeah, imply anyone noting the complexity is a moron.  Classy.




I said no such thing. Saying that somethibg isn’t that complicated isn’t the same as saying anyone who doesn’t get it is a moron. That’s a really lousy attempt to put words in my mouth. 

I’m gonna drop this whole side topic. I think I made a point, you addressed something about the way I made my point, and I then clarified. I’m not gonna get drawn into any further semantic quibble with you on this.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Likely because while earlier versions of D&D (i.e. the game most familiar to most people) had some vague and easily-ignored attempts at social rules (e.g. morale), 3e was the first time they were both hard-coded and pushed to the fore.  Thus, 3e's social rules by default became both the benchmark then and the go-to example ever since.



This is not a thread in the D&D sub-forum, though. It's in General RPG.



Lanefan said:


> in this particular case (social negotiation) there's no legitimate reason to want them either.  Short-cutting or skipping actual spoken-word roleplay; jumping to the end of the scene rather than talking through a stalemate; a desire to force PCs (or NPCs, for all that) to be "persuaded" where their free will might go otherwise: none of these are legitimate reasons for social mechanics in any way



This is strong stuff - _no legitimate reason_? - really? - and also rests on a mistake. What do you think action declaration looks like in systems with proper social resolution mechanics? Hint: _actual spoken-word roleplay_.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> /snip
> 
> Again, I think this is because no matter how compelling an argument can be made, people can still hear it and say "I don't care". Look at how many people smoke or eat McDonald's or do any other self destructive behavior. They have heard compelling arguments which they know to be true and they've chosen to ignore them.
> 
> Under your view of the rules, how do you allow for this phenomenon?




Why would I bother rolling here?  If your character chooses to do something self destructive, I'd probably raise an eyebrow and say, "Are you really sure you want to put your hand in the Green Demon face?"  But, it would be a pretty rare D&D game where an NPC is going to try to convince the PC to eat more kale.



> Also, how do you allow for different people to respond differently to the same compelling speech? if the result is based entirely on the roll for the NPC's speech, then if it's high, is everyone persuaded? Do you allow for different DCs for each listener? Seems needlessly cumbersome.




Every PC has a different saving throw vs a given spell.  How is that any more cumbersome?  Every PC has a different AC.  What's the difference?

As far as trying to convince the group, well, to be honest, die rolling will almost never come into it.  Like I said, when the King says, "Hey can you rescue my daughter" my players know that "Hey, the adventure is that way!" and react accordingly.  

And, as a side note, I'd point to the popularity of Adventure Paths as evidence that this sort of behavior at the table is pretty common.  It would be a pretty rare group, I think, that sees the DM plunk down Out of the Abyss and the players go, "Naw, we want to be innkeepers in Waterdeep".  And no amount of social rules is going to help that group.

This rolls back to my point about the excluded middle.  Are there examples where a die roll probably isn't appropriate?  Of course.  Totally agree.  But, that does not mean that social mechanics should be house ruled out of existence.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, it would be a pretty rare D&D game where an NPC is going to try to convince the PC to eat more kale.



 Now I have to work that into my next session somehow...  It'll be a toughie, they're talking to Loki in a seedy corner of Valhalla (OK, it's a ravine towards the base Kord's peak in Celestia, but six-of-one).



> Like I said, when the King says, "Hey can you rescue my daughter" my players know that "Hey, the adventure is that way!" and react accordingly.
> And, as a side note, I'd point to the popularity of Adventure Paths as evidence that this sort of behavior at the table is pretty common.



  I think there's a fair bit of 'borrowing trouble' for the sake of an example going on here.  Persuasion is a skill in one ed of D&D (and that seems to be where the example's coming from) and it's not exactly spelled out that it should be used to dictate PC behavior.  



hawkeyefan said:


> I said no such thing. Saying that somethibg isn’t that complicated isn’t the same as saying anyone who doesn’t get it is a moron.



 Saying that something is simple enough for a not-any-kinda-prodigy 8 year old is saying that anyone who finds it complex lacks mental faculties comparable to said 8yo. Maybe that's not how you meant it - IDK how else you could've meant it, but benefit of the doubt & all - but you said it.  
Feel free to re-phrase it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is not a thread in the D&D sub-forum, though. It's in General RPG.



 IIRC, Lanefan has far more experience with classic D&D than any other system.  So I guess he tends to go there.  Heck, Hussar, Elfcrusher, and I have been /mostly/ talking in terms of D&D in this thread, too.



> This is strong stuff - _no legitimate reason_? - really? - and also rests on a mistake. What do you think action declaration looks like in systems with proper social resolution mechanics?



 Hopefully about like any other declaration, if the system is at all consistent...


----------



## Hriston (Apr 19, 2018)

I think I found it!



Afrodyte said:


> One solution I haven't seen yet is using something similar to _The Shadow of Yesterday_'s Keys where you get XP for roleplaying certain personality traits, flaws, etc.
> 
> 5e doesn't directly link XP to roleplaying, but it does have Inspiration, which is something I think DMs (at least on ENWorld) tend to underutilize. Just as the DM can award Inspiration for roleplaying an ideal, bond or flaw, why not award Inspiration when a player allows their character to experience interesting complications as a result of a die roll (or however you want to word this). You don't even have to make a hard-and-fast rule with it. Go ahead and give Inspiration when a player plays along instead of digs their heels in, and tell them why they got the Inspiration so that other players can get the hint.
> 
> At least, that's how I'd deal with it.




The difference between what you're saying here and what I said in my post, which may not have been very clear, is that while you seem to advocate for giving Inspiration to players when they "play along" with an adverse outcome to the use of a social mechanic, I'm suggesting using Inspiration as a social mechanic that reinforces players choosing for their characters to acquiesce to the proposal of an NPC when doing so is in keeping with their character's personal characteristics. Of course, this requires the DM to be at least familiar with what those characteristics are.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Why would I bother rolling here?  If your character chooses to do something self destructive, I'd probably raise an eyebrow and say, "Are you really sure you want to put your hand in the Green Demon face?"  But, it would be a pretty rare D&D game where an NPC is going to try to convince the PC to eat more kale.




Well the self destructive bit was just an example to show how people can ignore even helpful advice or requests. But it was to illustrate how an even less extreme example could come up. So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.

How do you allow for that?



Hussar said:


> Every PC has a different saving throw vs a given spell.  How is that any more cumbersome?  Every PC has a different AC.  What's the difference?




That’s a fair point. But in a system that doesn’t have such a mechanic built in, what do you use? In 5E, how would you handle this? 



Hussar said:


> As far as trying to convince the group, well, to be honest, die rolling will almost never come into it.  Like I said, when the King says, "Hey can you rescue my daughter" my players know that "Hey, the adventure is that way!" and react accordingly.
> 
> And, as a side note, I'd point to the popularity of Adventure Paths as evidence that this sort of behavior at the table is pretty common.  It would be a pretty rare group, I think, that sees the DM plunk down Out of the Abyss and the players go, "Naw, we want to be innkeepers in Waterdeep".  And no amount of social rules is going to help that group.
> 
> This rolls back to my point about the excluded middle.  Are there examples where a die roll probably isn't appropriate?  Of course.  Totally agree.  But, that does not mean that social mechanics should be house ruled out of existence.




I agree with you about players being cooperative. That’s my experience as well. And although I’m not a big fan of the adventure path model overall because I find them too linear and too....inevitable?....I do think that this is likely pretty common. 

However, I think the examples need not be so fundamental to the adventure. It’s not always the story hook that’s in question. Usually no rolls  for that are really necessary, as you mentioned.

But what about other instances of Persuasion or Bluff or other social mechanics? What about something like the PCs confronting a suspected villain, and the villain makes a high Bluff check. Do you require that the PCs believe him? Does it solely depend on the die roll or can one of the PCs say “I don’t care what this guy says, I don’t believe him”?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2018)

Hriston said:


> The difference between what you're saying here and what I said in my post, which may not have been very clear, is that while you seem to advocate for giving Inspiration to players when they "play along" with an adverse outcome to the use of a social mechanic, I'm suggesting using Inspiration as a social mechanic that reinforces players choosing for their characters to acquiesce to the proposal of an NPC when doing so is in keeping with their character's personal characteristics.



 Like compelling an aspect by giving the player a Fate point in, well, Fate.  Sure.  



> Of course, this requires the DM to be at least familiar with what those characteristics are.



Which is kinda a pain in 5e, which puts plenty on the DMs plate as it is.



hawkeyefan said:


> Well the self destructive bit was just an example to show how people can ignore even helpful advice or requests. But it was to illustrate how an even less extreme example could come up. So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.
> How do you allow for that?



 Just have better rules.  It's not that there shouldn't as Lanefan suggest, not be rules (substitute the social abilities of the players), or not even be scenes were an NPC's social traits might be relevant in a resolution also involving the traits of a PC.  It's just that the rules need to be workable.  Fate, for the above instance, has workable rules for the GM getting a PC to do something that's in-character for the PC, but clearly a bad idea from the player's PoV - compelling aspects.  5e does not.  It has a Persuade proficiency that's, I think, clearly meant to used to resolve actions where the player has the PC do something persuasive, but could, with the 'what's good for the PC goose is good for the NPC gander' philosophy of DMing, be applied in reverse.  



> That’s a fair point. But in a system that doesn’t have such a mechanic built in, what do you use? In 5E, how would you handle this?



 I think, in WotC era D&D in general, you could frame the negotiation around the reward or resources the PCs would receive if they accept the mission.  It might be a skill challenge in 4e or a group check in 4e or 5e, or a gimme for the diplomancer 'face' in 3.5, but it could side-step the issue.  




> But what about other instances of Persuasion or Bluff or other social mechanics? What about something like the PCs confronting a suspected villain, and the villain makes a high Bluff check. Do you require that the PCs believe him? Does it solely depend on the die roll or can one of the PCs say “I don’t care what this guy says, I don’t believe him”?



 I think Bluff v Sense Motive/Insight tends to get used more like perception.  Take it behind the screen in 5e and you're fine.  "Do I think he could be lying?'"  ::dice rattle behind the screen:: "He seems sincere to you."


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Just a caveat here.  The NPC has made a suggestion (save my daughter) and made a persuasive arguement (diplomacy check).  Which doesn't mean that you have to jump on a horse right now and ride off.  It would mean, though, that you accept that quest, in that example.  Right?  I just want to be pretty clear here what we're actually talking about.  The NPC has made a plausible suggestion (kill your ally is NOT a plausible suggestion) and we're rolling dice.  ((I'm being specific here, because obviously in specific circumstances, there might be all sorts of other issues - maybe the princess is a vampire and the PC is a paladin))
> 
> So, with that in mind, I'd probably just go with the set DC's from the DMG.  It's a pretty plausible suggestion from someone who can quite plausibly make suggestions that are going to get acted on (not that many people tell the king to piss off, at least, not more than once), so, probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of a DC 15.  Pretty decent pass/fail chances.
> 
> And, again, just because you are going to go on the quest to save the princess doesn't automatically mean you can't try to get a bigger reward, or something like that.  It's just that, if the NPC is successful, you are going in that direction and your play should reflect that.




It sounds in some ways like a kind of reverse skill challenge where the NPC is trying to defeat the PCs to me.



> /edit to add
> 
> I would like to say that the quest example is not a particularly good one.  Let's be honest, if, in the game, you've met the king of the land and he says, "Please save the princess", most players are going to say yes.  Primarily because that's where the adventure is.  It's a pretty dick move by the players if the DM sets this up and the players say, "No, we aren't interested in all that work you just did preparing for tonight's session, we're going to go do something else".  I'd say that most of the time, when the DM presents a pretty clear plot hook like this, most players are good little fishies and bite onto it anyway.  A check likely wouldn't even be needed.
> 
> Yes, yes, I realize that in _your _game (whoever you happens to be) players are 100% free every single session to do whatever they like, but, I'm fairly confident in saying that most tables aren't like that.  The DM has the adventure, whatever the adventure is, and well, as a player I'm not going to turn my nose up at it.




Is that not a completely different issue?  If you are playing though an Adventure Path then sure the Players have agreed to follow the rails but in sandbox play then the Players should be able to choose the hooks they want to follow after.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Well the self destructive bit was just an example to show how people can ignore even helpful advice or requests. But it was to illustrate how an even less extreme example could come up. So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.
> 
> How do you allow for that?
> /snip




Again, this example suffers from what is likely going to happen in play.  When the DM drops that giant honking sign saying "ADVENTURE THIS WAY", most players are going to follow along.  And, frankly, if the DM drops these honking big adventure signs and the players frequently ignore it, then, well, that's probably a table issue.



> But what about other instances of Persuasion or Bluff or other social mechanics? What about something like the PCs confronting a suspected villain, and the villain makes a high Bluff check. Do you require that the PCs believe him? Does it solely depend on the die roll or can one of the PCs say “I don’t care what this guy says, I don’t believe him”?




This is a much better example, IMO.  This is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about.  The dice have said, "you believe this guy".  That's what the game is telling you.  Not the DM, the game.  The mechanics are informing the player what his character thinks.  To me, it's a better role player that will take that and run with it, even though the player himself might think it's bad.  For the player to just unilaterally over rule the rules, is bad play, IMO.  Just like we don't want players to declare that that attack missed because he dodged, we shouldn't let players just declare, "Nope, no matter what the game says, I don't believe him".



Shasarak said:


> It sounds in some ways like a kind of reverse skill challenge where the NPC is trying to defeat the PCs to me.




Not a bad way to put it.  I kinda like that.  What's the problem?


> Is that not a completely different issue?  If you are playing though an Adventure Path then sure the Players have agreed to follow the rails but in sandbox play then the Players should be able to choose the hooks they want to follow after.




Sure, and, like I said, the "king hook" example isn't a particularly good one IMO.  There's too much else going on for it to be very useful.  But, the villain bluffing the party?  I think it's a much better example.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Look at how many people smoke or eat McDonald's or do any other self destructive behavior. They have heard compelling arguments which they know to be true and they've chosen to ignore them.
> 
> Under your view of the rules, how do you allow for this phenomenon?



Is pointing to the influence and the effects of marketing campaigns and socially-embedded norms and practices a good way to _rebut/I] the tenability/verisimilitude of social mechanics?

I'm not sure how the "no mechanics" view of the rules allows for these phenomena!



hawkeyefan said:



			So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.
		
Click to expand...


Well, if some people aren't persuaded doesn't that tend to show that it was not, in fact, persuasive?



hawkeyefan said:



			how do you allow for different people to respond differently to the same compelling speech? if the result is based entirely on the roll for the NPC's speech, then if it's high, is everyone persuaded? Do you allow for different DCs for each listener? Seems needlessly cumbersome.
		
Click to expand...


Fireball uses a different DC for each person in the area. I'm not sure that blowing things up is inherently entitled to table time that talking to people isn't.

As to the "different people respond differently" question:



pemerton said:



			There are a few different ways to think about resolving the situation where the king asks the PC to rescue his daughter, and - in the ensuing social resolution process - the GM (for the king) succeeds over the player (for the PC).

(1) The PC receives a buff/augment if carrying out the quest. (This is adapted from how The Riddle of Steel handles its "spiritual attributes'.)

(2) The PC receives a penalty if doing things other than the quest. (This is sort-of how MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic handles it.)

(3) The PC changes his/her ideal to be something like I will rescue the king's daughter. (This is a variant on one way Burning Wheel can handle this sort of thing.)

(4) The PC sincerely agrees to help rescue the king's daughter (this is the default outcome of a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel).​

Click to expand...

Each of (1) to (4) allows for different people to respond differently._


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> It would be a pretty rare group, I think, that sees the DM plunk down Out of the Abyss and the players go, "Naw, we want to be innkeepers in Waterdeep".  And no amount of social rules is going to help that group.



Just on this point - I agree with your particular example.

But Luke Crane does comment, in one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, that in his experience the use of social mechanics to resolve PC vs PC arguments does (i) help the group at the table reach consensus on what to do next, and (ii) makes players feel more comfortable to have their PC argue with another PC, precisely because there's a way of resolving it at the table which sees the game go on, rather than having everything grind to a halt due to this social issue with no straightforward resolution.

In my Cortex+ Heroic game the PCs argue with one another from time to time, inflicting mental or emotional stress on one another (because some of the PCs have milestones which yield XP when this happens, some of the players are always on the lookout for a chance to do this). In my 4e game once, and in my Classic Traveller game more than once, I've used an impromptu social mechanic to resolve a seemingly interminable PC-vs-PC argument about what to do next - eg in Traveller I have each side roll, with a side that includes a noble, or a PC with Leader expertise, getting bonuses.

The side that loses agrees to go along with the side that wins - at the table first and foremost, and therefore in the fiction also.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> But the game says that you are tired and therefore suffer disadvantage to all skill checks. Interpreting that as grumpy isn’t all that unreasonable.
> 
> ...



"To me, saying “nope, I the player don’t think that therefore that’s what my character thinks/feels” is poor role play. "

So glad we get to the good roleplay vs bad roleplay. Its always such a great straw man and so productive.

Nobody is saying or even close to the player think equaling character think bad roleplay. 

Its the notion of **who** in the game setting decides what the character thinks thats really at point.

Grumpy is absolutely one **possible** emotional response to tired, but so are a bunch of others including silly giggly, so is sad, so is wistful. 

I as a player can have the character roleplay any number of those, but how is anything gained by the gm,deciding he gets to tell me which to do? 

The line being crossed is the one between the gm describing events and actions and the gm defining you character's reaction.

Put another way, oh good roleplayer savant, i am **not** roleplaying my character if all i am doing is what the GM tells me i have to do cuz the GM has chosen my reaction to the events for me. 

Many roleplayers every day, while maybe not as good roleplayer as you, make choices in character on their on that they the player would never do. They even sometimes make decisions in character that the player in that context knows is not the "goid choice" but is "what my character would do." They are roleplaying **their** character's.

The player who has the GM tell them "you are persuaded" and who then goes down that road is roleplaying their **GM's** character. 

YMMV.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 19, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> It sounds in some ways like a kind of reverse skill challenge where the NPC is trying to defeat the PCs to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not a completely different issue?  If you are playing though an Adventure Path then sure the Players have agreed to follow the rails but in sandbox play then the Players should be able to choose the hooks they want to follow after.



Also, how compelling is the arhument to the wizard who really realky wants to complete the research after he finalky finished the quest for the third and final macguffin? 
Or the cleric who realky is more interested in getting the needed supplies to the temple? 

Or how about the really really convincing argument by the expertise persuasion guy to go do the thing but to do the thing means dropping the thing we were after? Sounds like great way to stop those meddlesom kids.

I make sure my players know my PCs are not me and their suggestions are therefore not my suggestions.

So when an offer paying good money for a long escort goody goody plus orphans comes up, its their choice whether to take it or stay on mission. Sometimes it will be legit, other times its a wiley BBEG trying to literally "buy,more time" and solve his "meddling kids" problem without massive bloodshed and risk.

Would be lots easier for the BBEG/M if that "which matters more to us" **choice** was a hired pitch man's expertise backed roll away.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2018)

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] - you are presuming, of course, that the pitch man is always successful.  After all, I'm advocating a mechanical resolution here, which means that success is never guaranteed.  

Flip it over.  How likely is it that the 8 Wis barbarian is going to disbelieve that bluff?  You are saying that it's good roleplaying when the 8 wis barbarian (or whatever) chooses to ignore the rolls at the table because you, the player, feel like it.  To me, and, hey, you can get all snarky about it all you like, I think that's poor play.  

Play the character that you brought to the table.  If that means that sometimes your character is influenced by stuff that you the player aren't then so be it.  I'm a very big fan of games like Burning Wheel and FATE and Blades in the Dark which actually have mechanics in place to achieve this.  I do wish that D&D would bring them in too.

If we're honestly going to promote the idea that the three pillars of the game are supposed to be equal, then how does it make sense that one of the pillars has virtually no mechanics and what mechanics there are, can be ignored by the player any time she feels like it?

This, again to me, seems like a perfect place for a rules option module in something like Unearthed Arcana.  Something that a table could choose to use if it so desires.


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 19, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I think I found it!
> 
> The difference between what you're saying here and what I said in my post, which may not have been very clear, is that while you seem to advocate for giving Inspiration to players when they "play along" with an adverse outcome to the use of a social mechanic, I'm suggesting using Inspiration as a social mechanic that reinforces players choosing for their characters to acquiesce to the proposal of an NPC when doing so is in keeping with their character's personal characteristics. Of course, this requires the DM to be at least familiar with what those characteristics are.




That seems like how it's supposed to be used in 5e. I thought everybody did that (I know I do), but I guess not.


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> How likely is it that the 8 Wis barbarian is going to disbelieve that bluff?  You are saying that it's good roleplaying when the 8 wis barbarian (or whatever) chooses to ignore the rolls at the table because you, the player, feel like it.  To me, and, hey, you can get all snarky about it all you like, I think that's poor play.




Ugh! This reminds me of something that happened to me a lot in one game more years ago than I care to admit.

This was 3e. I was playing a silver-tongued rogue (I am shy and awkward in real life, and I was even worse back then), and whenever the party interacted with NPCs, another player, who was playing a monk with a Charisma of about 8 sort of steamrolled over the interaction and did all the talking, even interrupting me before I had a chance to say, "Can I make a [insert social skill] check?" 

Finally, I had enough of it, and when he steamrolled over an interaction again while my silver-tongued rogue was right there, I piped up with, "Isn't Charisma _your_ dump stat?"

Nowadays, I'd probably be more tactful, but in my experience, refusing to play out the weaknesses of a character in a situation that calls for it affects other players even more than it affects the DM. Other players also made choices about the strengths and weaknesses of their characters as reflected in their stats, so someone who goes, "Nope!" when the dice don't favor them in one situation can wind up stepping on the toes of a role that another player built their character to fill. Unless, of course, one player's agency matters more than everyone else's.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> ...but, yeah, Lanefan was prettymuch talking about winding back the clock to early 1e, before there was anything much resembling skills outside the Thief class.



The various physical "skills" that model things done in real life, including physical skills (jump, balance, hold breath, etc.) and mental skills (memory, knowledge, etc.) are all just fine and weren't much of a part of 1e at all.

It's the interpersonal skills - the ones that replace or short-circuit actual RP at the table - that have to go.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is not a thread in the D&D sub-forum, though. It's in General RPG.



And whether you like it or not, the vast bulk of RPG play is either in D&D (all editions with 5e very much primary right now) or a very close offshoot (PF).  So, bring in examples from niche games all you like; but if they don't speak to D&D/PF they might not get much traction.



> This is strong stuff - _no legitimate reason_? - really? -



Yes it is.  


> and also rests on a mistake. What do you think action declaration looks like in systems with proper social resolution mechanics? Hint: _actual spoken-word roleplay_.



An action declaration of "I try to persuade the king to up his reward for finding the princess" is not roleplay, it's the social version of roll-play.  Action declarations are not roleplay in themselves.

Roleplay in this case means speaking the actual words your character would say in order to persuade the king, in character and without reference to mechanics.  The DM, taking the role of the king for the moment, then replies in character as said king.  A conversation of some sort ensues, and at some point during this the king decides to either up the reward, decline to up the reward, throw the PCs out for daring to ask for more, or whatever.  This decision could be based on any or all of a host of factors, some obvious to all (is the PC being courteous, is the king a jerk, etc.) and some hidden (does the king have enough in his treasury to offer more).

Lanefan


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 19, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I think the alignments help get a basic idea of where your character stands in regards to morals and values. For example, whether your character is good, neutral or evil, is already a pretty clear step to defining what kind of character you are going to play. If your character is lawful, then this poses the question in what way your character is lawful? Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong? Or do they follow a personal code? I wouldn't call that useless, but it is just a basis from which to further expand on your character's moral compass.



No real person is always good or always evil.
No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.

Real people don't commit evil acts because they're 'Evil'. They always rationalize their actions in some way. If your 'Evil' character commits atrocious acts for no reason other than being 'Evil' what is she?
What you (well, at least myself) really want, is players describing their goals and motivations, their personality traits. Following these will result in actions that others may consider good or evil.

Likewise the lawful/chaotic axis is way too one-dimensional:
You ask: "Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong?" I ask: How does your character feel about law "X"? How about law "Y"? It's not about 'the law' it's about specific laws. The stance towards each law can and will vary for an individual person.
You ask: "Or do they follow a personal code?" I ask: "Well, what IS your personal code?"

Describing a character's personality means to look at what drives them, and that simply isn't an abstract alignment.

And that's not even getting into the issues how alignment is used mechanically in D&D. Because in (almost) all editions and settings your alignment choice is tied to potential consequences. Classes you can't choose (or class abilities you risk losing), spells and magic items you can't use, etc.

And then, worst of all are the (misguided) expectations of many players and GMs:
For players it's an excuse to have their character act like a jerk, and for GMs it's a means to dictate the actions of the player characters.

I'm absolutely convinced the world (of roleplaying games) would be a better place if D&D had never had an alignment system.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But Luke Crane does comment, in one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, that in his experience the use of social mechanics to resolve PC vs PC arguments does (i) help the group at the table reach consensus on what to do next, and (ii) makes players feel more comfortable to have their PC argue with another PC, precisely because there's a way of resolving it at the table which sees the game go on, rather than having everything grind to a halt due to this social issue with no straightforward resolution.



This is awful.



> In my Cortex+ Heroic game the PCs argue with one another from time to time, inflicting mental or emotional stress on one another (because some of the PCs have milestones which yield XP when this happens, some of the players are always on the lookout for a chance to do this). In my 4e game once, and in my Classic Traveller game more than once, I've used an impromptu social mechanic to resolve a seemingly interminable PC-vs-PC argument about what to do next - eg in Traveller I have each side roll, with a side that includes a noble, or a PC with Leader expertise, getting bonuses.
> 
> The side that loses agrees to go along with the side that wins - at the table first and foremost, and therefore in the fiction also.



And this is worse.

The player(s) on the side that loses have just given up a great deal of their agency to game mechanics and meta-considerations; and further, are now forced by these mechanics into doing something their characters don't want to do.  And this is relevant: sometimes what the player wants to do and what the character wants to do are quite different; and here good roleplay dictates that the character's desires take precedence.  I've played characters into adventures I-as-player had no interest in at all; and I've had characters pull me out of adventures that I-as-player were really keen on.

If the players in their roleplaying of their characters have put those characters into an argument with each other, if you-as-DM have an NPC in the party you can throw in that character's in-character take on things, but other than that you-as-DM have no business using game mechanics to cut it short and-or force a resolution.

If the argument goes on all night, so be it.  Less work for you; sit back and enjoy your beer.

If the argument becomes serious enough to split the party, so be it.  You and the players now have the meta-issue of which part of the party to run, but IME if it's the players that are splitting the group they're also always cool with helping decide what gets run next. (usually, IME if the party splits into groups A and B the players in group B roll up new characters for group A and vice versa, then A gets run for a while and B put on hold, after which A gets put on hold and B gets run.  The definition of "a while" varies by group and situation.)

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> No real person is always good or always evil.
> No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.



Absolutely true.  And the same can be said of many PCs.

But over the medium to long term a DM can observe what your PC does and how it acts, and take an average; which gets noted as your alignment. (over the short term when a PC has just been introduced the DM often has to guess a bit)



> And that's not even getting into the issues how alignment is used mechanically in D&D. Because in (almost) all editions and settings your alignment choice is tied to potential consequences. Classes you can't choose (or class abilities you risk losing), spells and magic items you can't use, etc.



This is exactly why I keep alignment, as I quite like having all those limits and consequences as part of the game.  I also like aligned items and places.



> And then, worst of all are the (misguided) expectations of many players and GMs:
> For players it's an excuse to have their character act like a jerk, and for GMs it's a means to dictate the actions of the player characters.
> 
> I'm absolutely convinced the world (of roleplaying games) would be a better place if D&D had never had an alignment system.



It'd be different, for sure.  Whether it'd be better or worse or the-same-but-different is and always will be an open question. 

Lanefan


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] - you are presuming, of course, that the pitch man is always successful.  After all, I'm advocating a mechanical resolution here, which means that success is never guaranteed.
> 
> Flip it over.  How likely is it that the 8 Wis barbarian is going to disbelieve that bluff?  You are saying that it's good roleplaying when the 8 wis barbarian (or whatever) chooses to ignore the rolls at the table because you, the player, feel like it.  To me, and, hey, you can get all snarky about it all you like, I think that's poor play.
> 
> ...



"@5ekyu - you are presuming, of course, that the pitch man is always successful. After all, I'm advocating a mechanical resolution here, which means that success is never guaranteed. "

Well, of course, no i did not presume auto-success or imply it. Any,more than sending minions to kill the PCs presumes or  implies auto-success. 

And again, its not about roleplaying, good, bad, other. Yah can keep painting the other side with bad roleplaying pellets... It is missing the mark.

A GM can order from on high "thy has taken exhaustion so though art tired and so thou must play it and represent it by being  cranky" (or giddy silly giggly) or the player can make that same choice after being told "with your exhaustion level you character is tired" and **in either case** the roleplat that follows may match or not that decision.

What is at question here is not how neato nifty the player chooses to roleplay gee willikers but **who** decides how that character responds to the "result" of "tired". 

Lets put it this way... 

In combat if the ogre bashes my character for 10 hp and thst drops me to 20... Or of some injury like half spped busted knee etc... I take those results and apply them i suffer the effects. 

But, how the character chooses to react to that remains their choice.

I can decide **in character**:
Time to run
Time to rage
Time to yell for medic and go defensive.
Time to say a prayer and keep swinging.
Etc etc etc etc.

That continues until some higher threshold  takes it out of my hands and i no longer control my character.

What is being proposed here is to take the "how the character chooses to react" for social engagements and hand it to the GM. The player gets told not only that the pitch man made a sttong case but that the character was convinced... The character decided... The character agreed. 

On top of that, now that the choice has been removed from the player, he is expected to play this other persons character.

At least in combat you are not required to play dead or be tagged as bad roleplayer!  

I prefer games where the players are the ones playing their characters.

Radical, i know.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> This is awful.
> 
> And this is worse.
> 
> The player(s) on the side that loses have just given up a great deal of their agency to game mechanics and meta-considerations; and further, are now forced by these mechanics into doing something their characters don't want to do.  /snip




Just a point.  The character isn't the issue here, the player is.  It's the PLAYER that doesn't want to do something.  The mechanics of the game say that the character does actually want to do it, or rather will reluctantly go along or something to that effect.

The issue isn't about the character.  It's about the player refusing to accept that there just might be something that might convince the character even though the player remains unconvinced.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 19, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> No real person is always good or always evil.
> No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.




That is of course  correct. But the D&D alignment system do not suppose differently.



Jhaelen said:


> Real people don't commit evil acts because they're 'Evil'. They always rationalize their actions in some way. If your 'Evil' character commits atrocious acts for no reason other than being 'Evil' what is she?
> What you (well, at least myself) really want, is players describing their goals and motivations, their personality traits. Following these will result in actions that others may consider good or evil.




Again, D&D's alignment system does not claim that people commit evil because they are evil. All the alignments do, is describe if your character is more likely to commit good acts, or evil acts.



Jhaelen said:


> Likewise the lawful/chaotic axis is way too one-dimensional:
> You ask: "Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong?" I ask: How does your character feel about law "X"? How about law "Y"? It's not about 'the law' it's about specific laws. The stance towards each law can and will vary for an individual person.
> You ask: "Or do they follow a personal code?" I ask: "Well, what IS your personal code?"




I think you are mistaking the intent of the alignment system. It isn't meant to be the final definition of your characters personality, they are a tool to help you get started. So if you state that your character is lawful good, that is a general description of your character's moral compass. But that doesn't mean that you can't further define your character, and it doesn't mean that your character blindly follows every law. 



Jhaelen said:


> And then, worst of all are the (misguided) expectations of many players and GMs:
> For players it's an excuse to have their character act like a jerk, and for GMs it's a means to dictate the actions of the player characters.




You make the mistake of confusing the rules of the system for people that misuse the system in a way that it is not intended. You could list ANY rule in the game, and come up with an example of how a player may  use it to act like a jerk. That doesn't make it an inherent flaw of the system.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

My approach to some of the most common situations is thus. When a player gets dominated for the first time. Take them to one side, have them describe how their character feels inside and what they are thinking so they get chance to express themselves. Then have a discussion with the player about how the domination effect could play out.

- Try and give the character instructions that give some freedom. So “defend this area” rather than “stay in this spot and attack the first thing that comes through the door with your sword”

- Give the character an out... the enemy gives instructions that allow them to make follow up saves. Rather than skirting the rules to get the most efficient result.

- Make sure there are methods for other party members to break the curse somewhere accessible. 

- Make sure the end result leads to a fun and interesting challenge rather than a gloomy, recrimination filled TPK

- Use sparingly, I.e once in a campaign. If the same villain tries to do the same move the PCs should be able to counter it or turn it to their advantage.

With more subtle effects like charming, intimidation, etc. It is a case of me trying to work in an effect that still influences behaviour without removing decision making power from the player. These don’t have to be negative effects. Things you could use in D&D if intimidated as a PC could include.

- disadvantage on the first check made (maybe attacks against the bully until your first hit)
- losing place(s) in the initiative order
- temporarily being unable to use your own intimidation or mind effecting powers.
- losing or reducing movement
- or perhaps adding to movement provided it is away from the source
- improving cover bonus provided the player takes cover immediately

I always thought 3rd Ed’s greater range of conditions was always useful for this. With the shaken chain of conditions for instance. DMs can improvise effects that take into account the effect. Saying that non-magical abilities cannot ever effect what players are thinking shuts off a whole range of potential challenges the most common of which is fear. If done with a light touch, fear can be truly frightening and give players the chance to roleplay and still overcome challenges. 

After all as Ned Stark says you can only be brave when you are afraid.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

Also don’t forget inspiration as a reward for good roleplay. I use it liberally and it works wonders.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Just a point.  The character isn't the issue here, the player is.  It's the PLAYER that doesn't want to do something.  The mechanics of the game say that the character does actually want to do it, or rather will reluctantly go along or something to that effect.
> 
> The issue isn't about the character.  It's about the player refusing to accept that there just might be something that might convince the character even though the player remains unconvinced.



This ous the secind time you've said the mechanics say what the character thinks.  I missed that in my rulebook.  Where was it again?  You can pick which rules, any will do.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Primarily on the "don't" side is that NPC and PCs are equivalent structures and should be impacted by mechanics in the same way.  They should not, and aren't, even in the systems you're referencing (Cortex+, Fate, etc.).



If this is the primary point on the "don't" side, with most of the rest expounding upon this point of contention, then I hope you do not mind me cutting out most of your post. I will cut out some key snippets. You raise a number of excellent points, and you elucidate them well, so I hope that I can respond to your post in a manner that does your excellent post respect and justice. 

First on this point, I would not say "that NPCs and PCs are equivalent structures and should be impacted by mechanics in the same way." This position is too extreme of one that I hold nor I do appear to have said as much in what you have quoted. I would say that they are often _similar_ structures and that there are in-game _occurrences_ when they should be impacted by mechanics in the same way or perhaps an appropriately similar way. 



> This is clear in 5e play, if you assume Diplomacy single checks can force PC actions -- the DM sets the stage for the scene, introduces the challenge, has the NPC declare actions to resolve the challenge, and then narrates the results to the players.  No room for the players, here.



Which I have neither assumned nor advocated for. In fact, I am not sure if this general scenario would be worth a skill check in the first place, given how - as nearly everyone in this debate has acknowledged - almost all groups will bite, at least as a courtesy to the GM. But if there was a scenario that required social skill checks with an NPC and the PC Party that would be suggestive of negotiations, my likeliest approach, both in the context of 4-5e, Fate, and potentially games like Pathfinder as well, would be to set up a skill challenge. (This touches heavily on your last three paragraphs on NPCs using social skills in the context of players, and I suspect would mostly agree here.) The players would roll their Diplomacy/Persuasion/Rapport skill check as part of a series of various rolls: e.g., Bluff/Deception, Insight/Sense Motive, etc. If the players roll a Diplomacy check, then I might treat this as a skill contest in which the NPC would then roll their Diplomacy bonus. If the NPC beat their roll, then the NPC would gain a "win" notch (or the PCs a "loss" notch) in these negotiations that would potentially affect the outcome conditions. See more below: 


Shasarak said:


> It sounds in some ways like a kind of reverse skill challenge where the NPC is trying to defeat the PCs to me.



Indeed, but I would frame this less as a "reverse skill challenge," but just a regular one where the NPC can. This is similar, for me at least, to an environmental challenge, such as escaping a dungeon that is collapsing around the players. In this case, the players are navigating the minefield of a potentially tense and precarious social situation. There should be stakes in the negotiations that amount to more than "we are going" or "not going." These are possible outcomes, as opposed to the stakes, of failed negotiations. In Fate, I would likely be more transparent about the stakes of the skill challenge, so that players could potentially leverage their resources at key moments, as you allude to in your post. Your final three paragraphs only reinforce my point more heavily: NPC skill checks should have mechanical weight, including when they are using social skills against the PCs. Skill challenges and contests are several ways in which there is mechanical weight to NPC skill use. 



> But, to return to the difference between PCs and NPCs, the NPCs don't have the same levels of resources or even the same options on how to expend resources that the PCs do.  NPCs are bound tightly to the resolution, and rarely have the ability to swap to a different costing to avoid the resolution.  This is because the point of the NPCs is not to be the focus of the story, but to aid in telling the story.
> 
> And that's the key, for me -- PCs are the ONLY way the players interact with the game.  NPCs are one of many many authorities that the DM controls for the game.  *Claiming that PCs must be susceptible to the same mechanics as NPCs is saying that the PCs are unimportant in the game, because there are so many more NPCs and the DM has 100% control of them all.*  Rather, I subscribe to the idea that NPCs are just a tool to frame scenes for the game and are there to provide foils to the PCs, not usurp them.  The Prince that wants his daughter rescued is a challenge to the PCs, not a controller of them.  If the PCs decide this isn't a challenge they care for, why am I going to force them to go along using a mechanic when it's clear that the players don't want to do that?  Do I, as DM, have the right to decide what the players want to play?  Rhetorical questions, my answers are 'I wouldn't, that's bad' and 'No, I do not.'



I largely agree with your points apart from logical leap in the bold. I do not think that it says this at all. Or at the very least, it requires some additional assumptions, steps, and other attitudes to be present that are not inherently implied in the statement. And again, my primary point is not a unilateral subjugation of the PCs to the rules of NPCs, but when apt. And in this case, the primary point of contention has been over the use of NPC skills. 

But since this post, more helpful examples have come into play than the farcical Prince rolls a Diplomacy check so you are forced to save his daughter, namely an NPC/PC using a Bluff/Deception check on a PC. This is a point where the player often seeks to use an argument that appeals to their character's "head space" to opt-out of their characters being deceived.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Just a point.  The character isn't the issue here, the player is.  It's the PLAYER that doesn't want to do something.  The mechanics of the game say that the character does actually want to do it, or rather will reluctantly go along or something to that effect.
> 
> The issue isn't about the character.  It's about the player refusing to accept that there just might be something that might convince the character even though the player remains unconvinced.




When does one roll to see whether the PC is persuaded? Every time an NPC has a differing opinion with the PC or needs help and attempts to persuade the PCs to do them a favour? Can the DM use it to 'force' the character through mechanics to see (and do) things the way the NPC wants every time? It is tricky because the DM creates the NPC's stats. When is it fair and when is it not fair?

What you are suggesting is not at all alien to me, but it does have some rather large potential pitfalls.
I do find it strange considering in the past we have been on opposite sides of the alignment debate yet here you are pushing for DM control over characters (granted, control through mechanics), but nevertheless still control.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

Persuasion is an interesting example. However I think some of the things being discussed go beyond what I’d allow a PC to achieve against an NPC. To my mind persuasion doesn’t ‘make’ a person do anything. It just explains why it’s good for them. These same explanations apply both ways.

For instance if a player tries to persuade an NPC to do something that as the DM I think they would never do, then the roll is irrelevent (wouldn’t even ask for it). The same applies to players.

However there a lots of ways of making persuasion relevant.

Persuading a PC to lower the price of an item.You say “you don’t think you’ll get a better price than what the buyer is offering to pay.”

Persuading a PC to let a minor infranction slide. You say “it makes sense to let this mans theft go unpunished because of xxx”

Persuading a PC to render assistance. You say “you think it would be beneficial to you to help this man because xxx”

If the NPCs rolls were good enough I would use my knowledge of the player to tailor this to something their character would be motivated by. After all a person can convince you of something without knowing exactly what it was that made you eventually agree.

The player can choose to act irrationally in these situations. They still have that right. However persuasion is more about convincing a person to do something rather than coercing it.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 19, 2018)

TheSword said:


> For instance if a player tries to persuade an NPC to do something that as the DM I think they would never do, then the roll is irrelevent (wouldn’t even ask for it). The same applies to players.




So are you suggesting that the player decides if what the NPC says to the PC is irrelevant or not, and therefore informs the DM if a roll is required?


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

To a point yes. If the DM says the NPC wants to persuade the character to jump off a cliff, and the player says there is no way I would do that then I wouldn’t roll.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

It comes down to the age old question of match the role-play to the roll or the roll to the roleplay. If I’m honest,  do whichever makes most sense at the time.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 19, 2018)

TheSword said:


> To a point yes. If the DM says the NPC wants to persuade the character to jump off a cliff, and the player says there is no way I would do that then I wouldn’t roll.




Of course in-game examples are never that black-and-white.

So I recently had a stand-off between NPCs and PCs in a variation of the module *B10 Night's Dark Terror* whereby the NPCs were requesting the immediate assistance of the PCs  in helping them locate the stolen horses and rescue any survivors from the nearby villages. It was a strong argument by the NPCs. But equally compelling was a lead the PCs had uncovered which if followed would take them in the opposite direction. In-game the discussion between the two groups got very heated.

The PCs made the argument to the NPCs that they should abandon their homestead and return to the nearby city for safety given that many (if not all the nearby homesteads) had been destroyed and the goblin threat still loomed in the area. This was a decent argument by the PCs. 
The NPCs were not willing to abandon all they had (their homes, their horses and their recently kidnapped loved ones). They were going to form a search party (with or without the help of the PCs). They believed the goblins were in full retreat given their failed attack on the homestead.

At what point do I call for a roll? Both the PCs and the NPCs had valid arguments. I preferred not to resolve this through mechanics and I think it was the right call for the emerging storyline.

It would have been detrimental to my table if I as DM had forced the PCs into a contested persuasion roll and the PCs had lost. @_*Hussar*_ can you not see the dilemma one could possibly face with your solution?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure, but depending on the first and last parts, the middle part may or may not entail actual agency.  If the players' declared actions make no difference to the resolution, for instance, or if the scene gives them only one viable choice.  Yet 'depriving them of agency' like that may be critical to keeping the campaign on track and/or the experience 'immersive,' or whatever else it might be the table values that the game couldn't deliver by itself, at that point.



The first and the last parts are there to enable the middle part.  If you're removing choice, then what you're doing is just narrating to the players, not playing an RPG.  And, honestly, sometimes it's fine to narrate things, depending on the game and the social contract, but we should pretend that we're doing anything else by pretending we're following the play procedures.  In other words, sure, you can remove agency, but that's exactly what I'm saying is a problem.  Pointing out that you can still remove agency when my entire argument is that you shouldn't and the game is built in a way that if you use it's procedures with integrity you will not is rather... unhelpful?

And, for the last part, this is noble cause corruption -- I believe I'm doing this thing for a noble cause, therefore my means are reasonable to achieve that cause.  It's circular thinking and not valid.  You, as DM, have no special insight into what a better game is, you only have your bias towards your anticipated outcomes.  Any steering you do will be to achieve your anticipated outcomes, which isn't the same thing as a good game. It may be, but that's accidental rather than given using this framework.  That some DMs see success is foiled by the huge number of anecdotes on this board alone of DMs forcing play in ways that players hate.  Yet, using your construction here, the DMs are justified to do so and it's the player's fault for having a bad time because they're not going along with the DM's whims.  You're justifying the worst of railroads alongside the hypothetical noble use that has a good result.



> I'm not aware of an objective metric, but it's not /that/ hard (also not as easy as one might think) to tell if players in a campaign are generally finding it fun or not.    Experience as a player & DM, of course - decades of it, in some cases.  No good one's I've ever seen.  DMs must exercise their own judgement in these matters.  It's what separates RPGs from boardgames and MMOs and the like, where there's no DM -  a DM can adapt to the circumstances and the players, a boardgame is just the rules & the board it is what it is, an MMO is just it's programming until the next update.



"I can't tell you how you can tell, but I'm certain that it's not hard to tell?"  Really. :|

And yes, the role of DM is to provide flexibility in the situation, to create where the game leads.  This doesn't also imply that the role of the DM is to occasionally override player moves and instead play the PCs for a bit so that the game works better.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 19, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Of course in-game examples are never that black-and-white.
> 
> So I recently had a stand-off between NPCs and PCs in a variation of the module *B10 Night's Dark Terror* whereby the NPCs were requesting the immediate assistance of the PCs  in helping them locate the stolen horses and rescue any survivors from the nearby villages. It was a strong argument by the NPCs. But equally compelling was a lead the PCs had uncovered which if followed would take them in the opposite direction. In-game the discussion between the two groups got very heated.
> 
> ...




If I may, I'd say this could have been a great opportunity for a check, but not to make the party do anything.  If, as it seems, the party had conflicting goals.  Foremost, the party was strongly in favor of following their lead, which meant they could not assist the survivors.  The survivors were currently on a course of action that would endanger them, or so the party believed, and the party was also strongly in favor of sending the survivors to safety.  This is a great place for a check to resolve the stakes of the situation.  The party put forth an argument to the survivors that they abandon their rescue efforts and retreat to safety.  The survivors wanted assistance in rescue efforts.  This could play out in a few ways, depending on some particulars:

1.  The party gets their way, but at a possible cost.  In this resolution, the party will convince the survivors to return to the town regardless.  This is useful because it allows the party to continue on their chosen path, but adds a potential complication to that path, namely how do the survivors feel about it?  A check could be made with a success meaning that the survivors accept the party's argument and agree to return to town, freeing the party to continue without further issue.  A failure, though, would have the survivors return to town, but be bitter about it and spread tales of how the party abandoned people they could have saved because they didn't care.  Depending on what the party wants out of this and the future, this could be a big complication even as they're allowed to continue on their chosen path.

2.  The party will have to re-evaluate their plans.  In this resolution, the party makes the check to convince the survivors to flee to safety.  A success will have the survivors agree, but a failure will have them refuse and organize their own rescue party.  This leave the party with a new choice, abandon the survivors and follow the lead or delay the lead, possibly losing it, to assist the survivors.  Either way, the import of the check should be clear -- the result is what will happen and it will not be open to continued rehashing.  The party succeeds or has a new choice to make, but the situation changes.

And that last bit is an important thing I've embraced about checks.  If the dice are rolled, the _situation changes_.  I work to do this for every check, to make every check meaningful.  Being open about this and setting stakes can be a method, but I find I don't always have to set explicit stakes especially since my players have adjusted to this method.  Picking a lock, even, can be more fun if a failure leads to a change in circumstance.  An example, for my last game:  the rogue attempted to pick a rusty lock on an old treasure chest and failed.  I narrated that a pick had become wedged into the lock and was stuck in the mechanism.  The player now had the choice to try to pick the lock but break the tool at the same DC, or attempt to save the tool but break the lock at the same DC.  The failure put a resource (the lockpick) in jeopardy and made that failure a moment of drama rather than an empty roll that could just be re-rolled until it succeeds.  The player, by the way, being cautious, recovered her tool and broke the lock.  This meant the barbarian was up next to smash it open, a feat easily accomplished but rendering the chest unusable for it's purpose of holding things.  Also noisy, which reminded me to check to see if anything nearby heard.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 19, 2018)

Interesting arguments continue to be made on both sides.  I haven't really moved from my beliefs, but this has helped me elucidate, and even understand, what I feel in my gut.  I think my own ideal expectations are:

a) If social skills are reciprocal (meaning they work NPC->PC the same way as PC->NPC) then they should be fully reciprocal.  Since the DM sets the DC, depending on the goal, for NPCs, full reciprocity would mean the player sets the DC for his/her PC.  Or skip the DC, in either direction, and leave it to the DM or player to incorporate the die roll as they see fit.

b) If the DM doesn't like that (either in general or for a specific situation), just skip the rolls entirely and narrate the outcome.  So instead of using Geas _or_ persuasion, just skip the scene and narrate: "You have been hired by the Duke..."  This could optionally be preceded by, "Ok, I have a rescue mission planned out; everybody ok with that?" 

Honestly I'm fine with either.  The one thing I don't want is the illusion of choice, in the sense that if I make the 'wrong' choice I will be forced to change it.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Of course in-game examples are never that black-and-white.
> 
> So I recently had a stand-off between NPCs and PCs in a variation of the module *B10 Night's Dark Terror* whereby the NPCs were requesting the immediate assistance of the PCs  in helping them locate the stolen horses and rescue any survivors from the nearby villages. It was a strong argument by the NPCs. But equally compelling was a lead the PCs had uncovered which if followed would take them in the opposite direction. In-game the discussion between the two groups got very heated.
> 
> ...




You are correct the clear cut cases are never the issue. 

In this instance, I would have had the Vistani make their case and the PCs make their case. If a particularly charismatic persuasive Vistani wanted to attempt to persuade the PCs to change their mind I think it is probably best for the DM to roll a dice against a secret player persuasion roll) and then the DM uses the result to determine how convincing the Vistani is. If the players weren’t making their own arguments then I’d use passive persuasion [edit]

If the PCs agree to the Vistani request no roll is needed. If you think the players suggestion is so reasonable no roll is needed. If the Vistani say we will die before we leave our people then no roll is needed.

If the Vistani rolled very well I might say to the players “based on the Vistani’s arguments you think your lead can wait and that them leaving the camp to go to the town would be bad for xxx reasons (what ever reason is appropriate to them)”

This way you are not invalidating their choice but you are making in clear that the vistani’s argument is persuasive enough. If the PCs still ignored the choice then the Vistani would be reasonable to think the PCs were behaving irrationally - cue the exclamations of madness and the increasing of the reputation for being frivolous, or uncaring. “Hey you’re the adventurers who left those people behind to chase crazy leads...”

If the PCs argument was poorly conceived or the Vistanis request onerous I may modify the rolls. In this way roleplay informs the dice roll which then informs the remaining roleplay.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> If this is the primary point on the "don't" side, with most of the rest expounding upon this point of contention, then I hope you do not mind me cutting out most of your post. I will cut out some key snippets. You raise a number of excellent points, and you elucidate them well, so I hope that I can respond to your post in a manner that does your excellent post respect and justice.
> 
> First on this point, I would not say "that NPCs and PCs are equivalent structures and should be impacted by mechanics in the same way." This position is too extreme of one that I hold nor I do appear to have said as much in what you have quoted. I would say that they are often _similar_ structures and that there are in-game _occurrences_ when they should be impacted by mechanics in the same way or perhaps an appropriately similar way.
> 
> ...




As it seems we're largely agreed, I'd just take up the bit from the last paragraph as the remaining grounds of discussion.  Good response, by the way, and thanks.

The deception check, I think, is useful only if the PCs are trying to do something to determine truthfulness.  The NPC says whatever the NPC says.  I don't change that based on how well they might have rolled.  Instead, what is said is part of the framing, and the players can declare actions to engage that framing.  In this case, I'd assume they'd state they were looking for signs of dishonesty in the NPC, which would be a WIS (Insight) check in 5e opposed by a CHA (deception) check.  At this point, a fundamental difference in approach may occur as to how to adjudicate the results, but I'll try to bridge the gap.

Firstly, there's using Insight as a "truth check."  A success would mean I would reveal to the players if the NPC was lying or telling the truth.  A failure would would mean I tell the players they can't tell one way or the other.  I suppose you could, at this point, decide that a failure meant you, as DM, should tell the player their PC believes the NPC, but what if the NPC is telling the truth -- do you now tell the player the PC disbelieves?  That's weird.  I'd rather go with getting information or not getting information - a success provides information relevant; a failure provides no new information. 

So, in this case, the deception check by the NPC isn't to make the PCs believe the NPC, but to prevent knowledge that it is a lie (presumably) from being discovered.  The players are still free to decide if the PCs believe or don't.  I've had a lot of success with this method in my games, as it's been my default even back when I though NPCs should roll against PCs.  It provides a way for Insight to be useful without being a 'you must believe' button.  

In other systems, I don't think this particular situation can actually arise -- NPCs in most of the games that have been brought up aren't likely to inject a deception check against PCs.  Rather, the PCs actions will result in consequences on failures that may include "you believe him or take stress" mechanics.

The second way is the way I've recently adopted:  checks have meaning and change the situation.  In this way, the setup is the same, but there's more consequence to the check.  A success means the players don't just receive information about a lie, but find some concrete information/evidence that the NPC is lying -- they get a solid info chit they can use with other skill checks to prove the statement is a lie.  Usually, I'd present this as the NPC continuing to speak but providing an obviously disprovable statement, or a recollection of a fact that the PC would know that shows out the lie.  On the failure side, though, the PCs would not get any information, but would also now be in a position that they cannot prove the lie at all to others (all other (reasonably involved) NPCs believe the lie) AND the NPC is aware of their distrust (and perhaps others as well, depending on the situation).  This puts the PCs in a decidedly more disadvantaged position with that NPC in the social conflict.

I disagree wholly with the argument that a deception check on the NPCs side means PCs believe them.  Even in real life, this isn't true.  I chose to extend belief to others, they never force it upon me.  You may successfully lie to me, but that doesn't me you make me believe you, it means that I have no evidence you're untruthful.  I may, for any number of biases, still choose to view you as untrustworthy.  I do this for the majority of the very charismatic new anchors on the cable news shows (you can choose whichever suits your personal biases, I'm agnostic on which 'side' is worse), for instance.  They can lie like champs (or, if you prefer, spin), but their skill at it doesn't mean I find them any more trustworthy.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> This is a much better example, IMO.  This is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about.  The dice have said, "you believe this guy".  That's what the game is telling you.  Not the DM, the game.  The mechanics are informing the player what his character thinks.  To me, it's a better role player that will take that and run with it, even though the player himself might think it's bad.  For the player to just unilaterally over rule the rules, is bad play, IMO.  Just like we don't want players to declare that that attack missed because he dodged, we shouldn't let players just declare, "Nope, no matter what the game says, I don't believe him".




Is that what the dice have said? I suppose this would be an opposed roll, the Bluff of the NPC versus the Insight of the PC? Do you do degrees of success or simple pass/fail in a case like this? 

To me, the mechanics aren't necessarily telling the character what he thinks so much as telling us how things seem. This guy seems like he's telling the truth. Whether the PC accepts that or not is ultimately up to the player. 

Now, I'd expect the results to be taken into consideration, and my players tend to be willing to go along when their PCs fail at something, so perhaps that level of player buy in is what affords me the ability to go the route I do? I imagine that's very likely. But if for some reason one of them said "No way....I don't care what this guy says, I don't believe it" I wouldn't really have a problem with it. 

Again, this is because ultimately, no one can actually force anyone to do something by word alone....so I don't think I would want that to be different in the game. 

And just because the topic has come up, I largely treat the NPCs very similar. I don't allow the PCs to simply convince them to do things with a check.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 19, 2018)

Sadras said:


> When does one roll to see whether the PC is persuaded?



I know that you are not asking me, but this is nevertheless a good question. My general approach to the question "when does one roll" almost invariably boils down to a core philosophy: roll when there are interesting consequences for both success and failure that can result from the roll. 



> It is tricky because the DM creates the NPC's stats. When is it fair and when is it not fair?



The GM would also otherwise set the DC, which players could equally regard as "unfair." So the trickiness does not necessarily go away on account of the NPC stats. 



Elfcrusher said:


> a) If social skills are reciprocal (meaning they work NPC->PC the same way as PC->NPC) then they should be fully reciprocal.  *Since the DM sets the DC, depending on the goal, for NPCs, full reciprocity would mean the player sets the DC for his/her PC.*  Or skip the DC, in either direction, and leave it to the DM or player to incorporate the die roll as they see fit.



That is an interesting idea, and I would be curious to see how that plays out, though providing a singular ladder for how do you rate on a Likert scale from  to  may be beneficial for providing standards for the DC. Another possibility worth exploring along this vein is that the skill roll does not have a binary outcome. There could be attitudal shifts instead depending upon the degree of success or failure, leaving the PC free to interpret that shift as appropriate for their character. 

And thank you, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], for your insights. You have given me a lot to consider, particularly in terms of interpreting the facing of skills. 

Excursus: 
To answer Shakespeare's question - "What's in a name? - I suspect that the answer is "A helluva a lot actually." And in this case, as seems evident throughout our discussions, the names of these skills likely communicate a lot in terms of their use and efficacy. And differences in those names can and do seemingly result in different understandings of the skill's purpose and efficacy as well. Diplomacy, for example, actually does have a more restrictive sense than the more general name of Persuasion. So does part of the problem rest in overly vague sense of a skill named 'Persuasion' over a skill named 'Diplomacy'? Or would the skill represented by 'Diplomacy' and 'Persuasion' (among others) still be just as sweet or sour smelling if it was represented by another name? Here, I am intentionally excluding the possibility that we ditch these skills entirely. Sorry, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I know that you are not asking me, but this is nevertheless a good question. My general approach to the question "when does one roll" almost invariably boils down to a core philosophy: roll when there are interesting consequences for both success and failure that can result from the roll.
> 
> The GM would also otherwise set the DC, which players could equally regard as "unfair." So the trickiness does not necessarily go away on account of the NPC stats.
> 
> ...




De nada.  Although, a shout out to @Iserth, [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and a host of others should entail for the assistance they've provided me along the way by making excellent, thought provoking arguments and exposing some alternative play frameworks.  I wish I could recall all of the excellent posters, but, alas, memory is my dump stat.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Is pointing to the influence and the effects of marketing campaigns and socially-embedded norms and practices a good way to _rebut/I] the tenability/verisimilitude of social mechanics?
> 
> I'm not sure how the "no mechanics" view of the rules allows for these phenomena!
> _



_

Well, I think I've been clear that mechanics are involved. I've said how I prefer for the mechanics to be involved, and my contention is that I don't like such mechanics to force players to have their characters behave a certain way. I'm not against mechanics in this area. 

As for the examples I gave, I think it was clear. People can be stubborn, people can be set in their ways, people can be influenced by marketing or peer pressure....we can list all kinds of factors. But ultimately, people are still free to ignore any amount of good advice or direction that they want to ignore.

So not allowing mechanics to force behavior so much as suggest behavior would indeed allow for that phenomenon. 



pemerton said:



			Well, if some people aren't persuaded doesn't that tend to show that it was not, in fact, persuasive?
		
Click to expand...



Perhaps. But it also depends on the subject. Different people would view the persuasiveness of an argument differently, based on a lot of factors. This is why I said that calculating a target for each PC would be cumbersome. You could instead have each PC make a check against some kind of DC, established perhaps by the roll made for the NPC, but do you just use a skill stat? Do you make adjustments for things like Alignment or anything else? Certainly a Neutral Evil PC won't be as likely to agree to save someone as the Lawful Good PC, etc. 



pemerton said:



			Fireball uses a different DC for each person in the area. I'm not sure that blowing things up is inherently entitled to table time that talking to people isn't.
		
Click to expand...



No, it uses the same DC...it's the PCs who have different capabilities to make the saving throw. This may be a pedantic distinction, and if so, I'm sorry for that. I only point it out because I've been advocating having the PCs making the rolls in social interactions as much as possible, as I just described above. My concern would be something akin to the problem I have with 3E/Pathfinder where there are dozens and dozens of adjustments made to rolls. This is me looking at it purely in the mindframe of my 5E campaign....I prefer to keep the mechanics simple and easy to implement.

As for table time, I don't think that something in the game having a game mechanic automatically means it will take more or less table time than something without a mechanic, so I don't really see the point. Certainly a PC making an open lock check takes less time than it will take the GM to then describe the room beyond the locked door, right? 



pemerton said:



			As to the "different people respond differently" question:
Each of (1) to (4) allows for different people to respond differently.
		
Click to expand...



These seem like mechanics from different games. So I don't know if they allow for PCs to react differently. Three of the four amount to the PCs making the same decision to help the king, and one is where the PC does not help the king. Is there one game where each of these four options exist? It seems odd to cite mechanics from different games, except perhaps as a suggestion for incorporating such mechanics. In which case, these are all interesting, but again, I wouldn't see all four existing in the same game._


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> The first and the last parts are there to enable the middle part.  If you're removing choice, then what you're doing is just narrating to the players, not playing an RPG.  And, honestly, sometimes it's fine to narrate things



 Yep.  And, sometimes, if you narrate a PC's state of mind or choice, certain players'll get all upset about it, as this thread illustrates.  So you let them choose their PC's state of mind, and let them make a choice, so they stay all immersed and maintain their illusion of being in control, and then narrate the results the game needs.



> In other words, sure, you can remove agency, but that's exactly what I'm saying is a problem.  Pointing out that you can still remove agency when my entire argument is that you shouldn't and the game is built in a way that if you use it's procedures with integrity you will not is rather... unhelpful?



 Sometimes the truth is unhelpful to an argument, yes.  The truth is some games leave the DM plenty of latitude to excise player agency via 'illusionism' (or 'Good DMing' or 'immersive play' or whatever, depending on who's making up the label), and others guard against it and/or build in greater player agency.  The game in question happens to be one of the former.  Arguing that you shouldn't do something the game enables you to do, and labeling that 'integrity' is essentially an argument that you shouldn't do it, because you said so.  I tend to think DMs should use the full bag of tricks the game gives them, to deliver the best possible experience.  In classic & 5e D&D, that includes not only engaging in illusionism, but also not using all the rules, not sharing which rules are & aren't being used nor the details of the mechanics when such would (for one instance) give away to the players things the characters don't know, and making up entirely new rules & mechanics (including situation-specific ones).



> And, for the last part, this is noble cause corruption -- I believe I'm doing this thing for a noble cause, therefore my means are reasonable to achieve that cause.  It's circular thinking and not valid.



 Are you sure labeling the thing you're arguing against 'corruption' isn't the circular thinking going on.  You're arguing DMs shouldn't use a technique that worked well for decades, and the reasons you come up with amount to pasting a label with a negative connotation over them.



> You, as DM, have no special insight into what a better game is



 Nope, you don't (well, you do have more information about the campaign as a whole than the players, and there's factors like breadth of exposure to different systems, depth & years of experience, etc..). But, ultimately, DM's are people too.  But, as a DM, you do have a special responsibility to provide that better game.  So you do your best.



> "I can't tell you how you can tell, but I'm certain that it's not hard to tell?"  Really. :|



 Really.  I'm not aware of any objective measure of subjective player experience - though I suppose a neuroscientist could hook players up to the right equipment and figure something out.  But, humans are pretty good at assessing how other human being sitting right in front of them and making no special efforts to mask their state of mind, feel about something they're doing.  We're social animals.  



> And yes, the role of DM is to provide flexibility in the situation, to create where the game leads.  This doesn't also imply that the role of the DM is to occasionally override player moves and instead play the PCs for a bit so that the game works better.



 I believe it does, based on having done & seen other DMs do that sort of thing with great success for many years.

I've also seen games where such isn't called for nearly so much (if at all).  They play better 'above board.'  But they give a different sort of experience, too.  'Less immersive' some would say.

I'm happy to run either sort and use the tools they provide to deliver the best experience I can.



Elfcrusher said:


> I think my own ideal expectations are:
> 
> a) If social skills are reciprocal (meaning they work NPC->PC the same way as PC->NPC) then they should be fully reciprocal.  Since the DM sets the DC, depending on the goal, for NPCs, full reciprocity would mean the player sets the DC for his/her PC.



 That sounds workable, given a system with either a consequence to setting a high DC, or a mechanism for determining the DC that the player has input to.  For instance, in 3.5, you'd be free to declare your initial attitude towards an NPC Diplomancer, including declaring it as 'hostile' even if there's no apparent reason for it (sometimes we just don't like someone on sight, or maybe you're just that suspicious by nature).  

Otherwise the player can set an untouchable DC every time, and it's not functionally reciprocal.



> Or skip the DC, in either direction, and leave it to the DM or player to incorporate the die roll as they see fit.






> b) If the DM doesn't like that (either in general or for a specific situation), just skip the rolls entirely and narrate the outcome.  So instead of using Geas _or_ persuasion, just skip the scene and narrate: "You have been hired by the Duke..."  This could optionally be preceded by, "Ok, I have a rescue mission planned out; everybody ok with that?"
> 
> Honestly I'm fine with either.  The one thing I don't want is the illusion of choice, in the sense that if I make the 'wrong' choice I will be forced to change it.



 What about the illusion of choice in the sense of a magician's force?  Left or Right, your choice.  But what's to the left or right changes behind the screen so that your choice (which is in no way forced nor changed) leads to the adventure, and you have no idea if you chose the way that 'really' led to the adventure in a game w/o illusionism, or if you chose 'wrong' in a game where the DM engages in such.  Same freedom-of-player-choice play experience, same adventure, either way.




Ovinomancer said:


> Firstly, there's using Insight as a "truth check."  A success would mean I would reveal to the players if the NPC was lying or telling the truth.  A failure would would mean I tell the players they can't tell one way or the other.  I suppose you could, at this point, decide that a failure meant you, as DM, should tell the player their PC believes the NPC, but what if the NPC is telling the truth -- do you now tell the player the PC disbelieves?  That's weird.



 Is it?  Getting something wrong is a plausible result of trying to determine something.  Further, the roll likely gives it away.  If the system is on a moderately high DC, Insight reveals that the subject is either being honest or 'holding something back,' on a higher DC it gives an idea what the lie may be, while hitting an easier DC means you 'can't tell,' and flubbing it gives you the opposite information from what's really going on.  If that were the system, you'd need to take the roll behind the screen, or the player can just believe the opposite of what you tell him when he rolls really low.  



> I'd rather go with getting information or not getting information - a success provides information relevant; a failure provides no new information.



 Logical from a gamist perspective, but leaving out a range of plausible results, so not so great from a narrative or simulation perspective.



> I disagree wholly with the argument that a deception check on the NPCs side means PCs believe them.



 Even if the DM rolls behind the screen and tells you "you're certain he's telling the truth" (either because the roll was a fantastic success and the NPC was being truthful, or because it's an abysmal failure and his deception was high), you can choose not to believe him - he could be mistaken, for instance, or you could feel that believing him would be too risky, or it could be that you believe something else with such conviction that a mere one other person honestly believing & truthfully relating a contrary fact is unacceptable to you and can be completely discounted.

Obviously, internet forum debates stand as strong evidence of the plausibility of that last.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 19, 2018)

TheSword said:


> If the Vistani rolled very well I might say to the players* “based on the Vistani’s arguments you think your lead can wait and that them leaving the camp to go to the town would be bad for xxx reasons* (what ever reason is appropriate to them)”




I would _never_ (ever) do this.  You just wrote "...you think that...".  You just told the player what his PC thinks!

I might make the roll and say, "The Vistani gives an impassioned speech about honor and duty and family, and claim that he would rather die than abandon his home.  Only a stone golem would be unmoved by his sincerity and resolve."

Then leave it up to the players to decide what they want to do with that.



> If the PCs agree to the Vistani request no roll is needed. *If you think the players suggestion is so reasonable no roll is needed*. If the Vistani say we will die before we leave our people then no roll is needed.
> 
> *If the PCs argument was poorly conceived* or the Vistanis request onerous I may modify the rolls. In this way roleplay informs the dice roll which then informs the remaining roleplay.




This is basing the outcome on the arguments presented by the player.  It's the player's, not the character's, cleverness that matters, as judged by the DM.  So there's really nothing objective or character-centric about it.   

So it seems inconsistent to me to then turn around and say, "...and I will decide how hard you will be to persuade (i.e., set the DC) and then let the dice determine if he persuades you."

If you are going to let the dice decide these things, then the only role of the roleplaying is to add flavor.  It should _all_ be dice.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 19, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Again, this is because ultimately, no one can actually force anyone to do something by word alone....so I don't think I would want that to be different in the game.




The Command spell begs to differ.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I would _never_ (ever) do this.  You just wrote "...you think that...".  You just told the player what his PC thinks!
> 
> I might make the roll and say, "The Vistani gives an impassioned speech about honor and duty and family, and claim that he would rather die than abandon his home.  Only a stone golem would be unmoved by his sincerity and resolve."
> 
> Then leave it up to the players to decide what they want to do with that.



 Play a stone golem, perhaps?



> If you are going to let the dice decide these things, then the only role of the roleplaying is to add flavor.  It should _all_ be dice.



 Roleplaying will also determine what the dice are going to resolve, of course.






Elfcrusher said:


> The Command spell begs to differ.



 Not begs, exactly.  It's magic, so it automatically gets it's way.   ;P

A lot of what you have to say on this topic makes some sense, then it all goes *poof* as soon as magic comes into it.  If it's OK for a saving throw (modeling your character's will/determination/etc in the face of some arcane mumbling & gesturing) to determine how your character thinks/feels/decides, then it's OK for some other check (modeling you're character's will/resolve/determination/etc in the face of an impassioned plea or reasoned argument) to determine something similar.



Also, I really feel like "framing" to /avoid/ the issue is the most practical solution, compared to somehow crafting mechanics to solve the issue.  If we're going to model character abilities instead of falling back on corresponding player abilities, then we need to insert a degree of imagination/abstraction, to reconcile resolution & character concept.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I would _never_ (ever) do this.  You just wrote "...you think that...".  You just told the player what his PC thinks!
> 
> I might make the roll and say, "The Vistani gives an impassioned speech about honor and duty and family, and claim that he would rather die than abandon his home.  Only a stone golem would be unmoved by his sincerity and resolve."
> 
> Then leave it up to the players to decide what they want to do with that.




Maybe it’s the way I have phrased the response. I am not telling the character how they should react. I don’t see that this is any different to saying ‘you think the branch will take your weight’, or ‘you think there is a trap on the doorhandle’ That’s how I phrase that info.  I’m sure you could phrase things in your own words so the effect is the same. Other than that the difference is semantic.



Elfcrusher said:


> This is basing the outcome on the arguments presented by the player.  It's the player's, not the character's, cleverness that matters, as judged by the DM.  So there's really nothing objective or character-centric about it.
> 
> So it seems inconsistent to me to then turn around and say, "...and I will decide how hard you will be to persuade (i.e., set the DC) and then let the dice determine if he persuades you."
> 
> If you are going to let the dice decide these things, then the only role of the roleplaying is to add flavor.  It should _all_ be dice.




I make a referee call on DCs based on how reasonable the request. A persuade test should be easier to ask for a sip of someone’s water than to be gifted the whole water skin, and that should be easier than asking them to gather all the water skins in the garrison when the castle is under siege.

At some point player choice should influence the dice rolls. There isn’t a hard rule for every possible stratagem a player could take.

Players make decisions, characters enact them. If a person has a skill in an area then I may give them extra advice based on that skill. However when that doesn’t exist the player’s decisions set the tone.

i can understand if you do things differently but I really do prefer to make the players choices matter before rolling the dice.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 19, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Maybe it’s the way I have phrased the response. I am not telling the character how they should react. I don’t see that this is any different to saying ‘you think the branch will take your weight’, or ‘you think there is a trap on the doorhandle’ That’s how I phrase that info.  I’m sure you could phrase things in your own words so the effect is the same. Other than that the difference is semantic.




I do get what you're saying.  I use the "you think" phrasing too, but only out of habit  I try not to.

I guess the question is what you do if the player doesn't go along with what you told him he "thinks". 

If the DM says, "you think the branch won't take your weight" and the player says, "I climb out on it anyway" I suspect most DMs would raise their eyebrow but say, "oooookay....".  (Or "Are you sure...?")

But somehow when the DM says "you think he is persuasive" it's not ok...for some people in this thread...if the player takes an action that contradicts that.




> I make a referee call on DCs based on how reasonable the request. A persuade test should be easier to ask for a sip of someone’s water than to be gifted the whole water skin, and that should be easier than asking them to gather all the water skins in the garrison when the castle is under siege.
> 
> At some point player choice should influence the dice rolls. There isn’t a hard rule for every possible stratagem a player could take.
> 
> ...




Yes, I agree.  I was really making a devil's advocate argument.  I was trying to point out that, for those arguing that it's the _character's_ mind that resists the persuasion, not the players, then it's inconsistent to allow the player to...well...do almost anything, really, but in this case specifically I mean put forward an argument that might be persuasive.  To be consistent would require that you only roll dice to determine how good the argument is.  Which I think is silly.

As I said earlier, if the DM is going to decide how good of an argument a player makes to an NPC (in the form of DCs or bonuses) then it's only fair and consistent that the player gets to decide the same when the NPC is attempting to persuade his character.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> If I may, I'd say this could have been a great opportunity for a check, but not to make the party do anything. ...
> 
> 1.  The party gets their way, but at a possible cost.  ...
> 
> ...



The first and last line I've quoted above are at odds; because if the outcome is (2) then the party ARE being made to do something they clearly don't want to do.

Further - and worse - is the "not open to continued rehashing" bit; which flat-out says you're using the check as a means of cutting off further roleplay.  As the primary agency players own in the game is that of being able to roleplay their characters, this seems an obvious instance of using game mechanics to limit player agency.

  [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] handled this exactly right, IMO, by letting the argument take as long as required to play out and leaving mechanics right out of it.



> And that last bit is an important thing I've embraced about checks.  If the dice are rolled, the _situation changes_.  I work to do this for every check, to make every check meaningful.  Being open about this and setting stakes can be a method, but I find I don't always have to set explicit stakes especially since my players have adjusted to this method.  Picking a lock, even, can be more fun if a failure leads to a change in circumstance.  An example, for my last game:  the rogue attempted to pick a rusty lock on an old treasure chest and failed.  I narrated that a pick had become wedged into the lock and was stuck in the mechanism.  The player now had the choice to try to pick the lock but break the tool at the same DC, or attempt to save the tool but break the lock at the same DC.  The failure put a resource (the lockpick) in jeopardy and made that failure a moment of drama rather than an empty roll that could just be re-rolled until it succeeds.  The player, by the way, being cautious, recovered her tool and broke the lock.  This meant the barbarian was up next to smash it open, a feat easily accomplished but rendering the chest unusable for it's purpose of holding things.  Also noisy, which reminded me to check to see if anything nearby heard.



The rogue example is great...but unfortunately also irrelevant to the question of "social mechanics".  Picking a lock is not* a social action, cannot (usually) be physically played out at the table by the players, and thus pretty much all RPGs have reasonably robust mechanics for resolving the attempt.

But social things can and should be played out by the players at the table, in the personae of their characters.

* - other than the exceeding rare instance where a lock is itself intelligent and requires persuasion to open.

Lanefan


----------



## TheSword (Apr 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> But somehow when the DM says "you think he is persuasive" it's not ok...for some people in this thread...if the player takes an action that contradicts that.
> 
> ... ...
> 
> As I said earlier, if the DM is going to decide how good of an argument a player makes to an NPC (in the form of DCs or bonuses) then it's only fair and consistent that the player gets to decide the same when the NPC is attempting to persuade his character.




Yes I understand what you mean. Really what I should say is ‘you know the branch isn’t solid.’ Except ‘know’ implies certaintanty which is why I used ‘think’, maybe ‘believe’ would be better or ‘suspect’. You got my point that I was trying to convey what the characters knowledge was rather than their attitude to that knowledge.

I get what you’re saying about the PC setting DCs, I’m not sure what the metric would be. I prefer to stick to the easy/normal/hard/very hard scale. Would the PC?

I think where possible PCs and NPCs should be treated the same. However there is a little part of me that sees a halo around player characters that sets them apart from other characters as protagonists.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> The deception check, I think, is useful only if the PCs are trying to do something to determine truthfulness.  The NPC says whatever the NPC says.  I don't change that based on how well they might have rolled.  Instead, what is said is part of the framing, and the players can declare actions to engage that framing.  In this case, I'd assume they'd state they were looking for signs of dishonesty in the NPC, which would be a WIS (Insight) check in 5e opposed by a CHA (deception) check.



What if it's the PCs who are lying?  Do these mechanics then just get reversed?



> Firstly, there's using Insight as a "truth check."  A success would mean I would reveal to the players if the NPC was lying or telling the truth.  A failure would would mean I tell the players they can't tell one way or the other.  I suppose you could, at this point, decide that a failure meant you, as DM, should tell the player their PC believes the NPC, but what if the NPC is telling the truth -- do you now tell the player the PC disbelieves?  That's weird.  I'd rather go with getting information or not getting information - a success provides information relevant; a failure provides no new information.



That's rather generous of you - no chance to flat-out get it wrong means there's never any risk to the roll: the results from the roller's perspective must either be good (relevant info gained) or neutral (status quo); which means you've strongly incentivized rolling every single time.



> So, in this case, the deception check by the NPC isn't to make the PCs believe the NPC, but to prevent knowledge that it is a lie (presumably) from being discovered.  The players are still free to decide if the PCs believe or don't.  I've had a lot of success with this method in my games, as it's been my default even back when I though NPCs should roll against PCs.  It provides a way for Insight to be useful without being a 'you must believe' button.



It's not a 'you must believe' button if there's a chance of getting it wrong.



> The second way is the way I've recently adopted:  checks have meaning and change the situation.  In this way, the setup is the same, but there's more consequence to the check.  A success means the players don't just receive information about a lie, but find some concrete information/evidence that the NPC is lying -- they get a solid info chit they can use with other skill checks to prove the statement is a lie.  Usually, I'd present this as the NPC continuing to speak but providing an obviously disprovable statement, or a recollection of a fact that the PC would know that shows out the lie.  On the failure side, though, the PCs would not get any information, but would also now be in a position that they cannot prove the lie at all to others (all other (reasonably involved) NPCs believe the lie) AND the NPC is aware of their distrust (and perhaps others as well, depending on the situation).  This puts the PCs in a decidedly more disadvantaged position with that NPC in the social conflict.



This is better, because there's some risk involved if you decide to roll; but there's still no chance to be mechanically convinced the NPC is lying when she's in fact telling the truth.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> That is an interesting idea, and I would be curious to see how that plays out, though providing a singular ladder for how do you rate on a Likert scale from  to  may be beneficial for providing standards for the DC.



Even as far back as 1e there were tables for determining an NPC's initial reaction (friendly, hostile, etc.). 


> Another possibility worth exploring along this vein is that the skill roll does not have a binary outcome. There could be attitudal shifts instead depending upon the degree of success or failure, leaving the PC free to interpret that shift as appropriate for their character.



This is much better than anything else I've seen here; better yet if it's the DM quietly rolling what would in effect be reaction rolls, to help her determine what the NPC thinks of what the PC is saying - but rather than revealing these rolls, having their effects appear in her play of the NPC.

On a broader scale, these rolls are being used to (maybe) shape the interaction rather than either resolve it or cut it off.



> Excursus:
> To answer Shakespeare's question - "What's in a name? - I suspect that the answer is "A helluva a lot actually." And in this case, as seems evident throughout our discussions, the names of these skills likely communicate a lot in terms of their use and efficacy. And differences in those names can and do seemingly result in different understandings of the skill's purpose and efficacy as well. Diplomacy, for example, actually does have a more restrictive sense than the more general name of Persuasion. So does part of the problem rest in overly vague sense of a skill named 'Persuasion' over a skill named 'Diplomacy'? Or would the skill represented by 'Diplomacy' and 'Persuasion' (among others) still be just as sweet or sour smelling if it was represented by another name? Here, I am intentionally excluding the possibility that we ditch these skills entirely. Sorry, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].



Apology accepted. 



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> Although, a shout out to @Iserth, @Campbell, @Manbearcat and a host of others ...



Ovi, it's   [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] - there's another 'i' in there. 

Lan-"Diplomacy, Persuasion...it's not the name that determines whether the smell is sweet or sour; it's the concept in general"-efan


----------



## Sadras (Apr 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> 1.  The party gets their way, but at a possible cost.  In this resolution, the party will convince the survivors to return to the town regardless.  This is useful because it allows the party to continue on their chosen path, but adds a potential complication to that path, namely how do the survivors feel about it?  A check could be made with a success meaning that the survivors accept the party's argument and agree to return to town, freeing the party to continue without further issue.  A failure, though, would have the survivors return to town, but be bitter about it and spread tales of how the party abandoned people they could have saved because they didn't care.  Depending on what the party wants out of this and the future, this could be a big complication even as they're allowed to continue on their chosen path.




I never thought of this, but I _do_ like the complication presented above and I might just incorporate some of it in a sense without the need of a roll. Thank you 



> And that last bit is an important thing I've embraced about checks.  If the dice are rolled, the _situation changes_.  I work to do this for every check, to make every check meaningful.




I find this technique provides colour and can lead to interesting decisions. As a DM it does 'push one' to be creative.

These are the failure options as I see them:
1a) Complication/Situation Change (your idea) 
1b) We have fail forward - so success with complication. (Picked the Lock, but broke the lock-pick or lock itself)
2) We have failure. (Failed to pick the lock)
3) We have failure with complication. (Failed and the lock-pick broke in the lock, jamming it.)


----------



## Hriston (Apr 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Like compelling an aspect by giving the player a Fate point in, well, Fate.  Sure.




I've never played Fate, but yes, aspects in Fate look very similar to personal characteristics in 5e, and invoking and compelling aspects seems analogous to the awarding and spending of Inspiration.



Tony Vargas said:


> Which is kinda a pain in 5e, which puts plenty on the DMs plate as it is.




How do you think it's painful? At worst it involves asking the player what the PC's personal characteristics are and then framing the NPC's proposal in terms of any relevant characteristics. The Fate Roleplaying Game SRD has this to say about compelling an aspect:
In order to compel an aspect, explain why the aspect is relevant, and then make an offer as to what the complication is. You can negotiate the terms of the complication a bit, until you reach a reasonable consensus. Whoever is getting compelled then has two options:


Accept the complication and receive a fate point

Pay a fate point to prevent the complication from happening

Paying a fate point in this instance would be analogous to choosing not to be awarded Inspiration by not roleplaying in accord with your PC's personal characteristic that has been touched upon by the NPC's proposal.



Tony Vargas said:


> It's just that the rules need to be workable.  Fate, for the above instance, has workable rules for the GM getting a PC to do something that's in-character for the PC, but clearly a bad idea from the player's PoV - compelling aspects.  5e does not.




To me, awarding Inspiration seems just as workable as compelling aspects, but maybe it isn't explained quite as well in the 5e rules as compels are in Fate.



Tony Vargas said:


> It has a Persuade proficiency that's, I think, clearly meant to used to resolve actions where the player has the PC do something persuasive, but could, with the 'what's good for the PC goose is good for the NPC gander' philosophy of DMing, be applied in reverse.




What's unworkable about reversing the social interaction mechanics for use against a PC is their reliance on NPC starting attitude. What's a PC's starting attitude, and how do you assign one? Those questions aren't answered by the rules of 5e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2018)

Hriston said:


> How do you think it's painful? At worst it involves asking the player what the PC's personal characteristics are and then framing the NPC's proposal in terms of any relevant characteristics.



 Remembering, tracking & judging those personality traits for every character.  



> To me, awarding Inspiration seems just as workable as compelling aspects
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> The first and last line I've quoted above are at odds; because if the outcome is (2) then the party ARE being made to do something they clearly don't want to do.



Huh?  Not following.  How does this make the party do anything -- they're faced with the same dilemma they started with, just with an option missing. You're confusing a force -- I make the party do an action -- with a turn of phrase meaning the party now has a harder choice to make than before.




> Further - and worse - is the "not open to continued rehashing" bit; which flat-out says you're using the check as a means of cutting off further roleplay.  As the primary agency players own in the game is that of being able to roleplay their characters, this seems an obvious instance of using game mechanics to limit player agency.



Sure, if you'd like to play D&D: the Arguing, I'm not going to contradict you.  Failing to bring a check to bear isn't anything like forcing a response by DM fiat.  I'm speaking only to the case of using mechanics to further play at appropriate times.  If you feel the time isn't appropriate to use mechanics, by all means, continue arguing between the players and the DM.

My group, though, isn't there to pretend argue ad naseum and prefer, once the sides are set and the stakes posted, to move forward in the play. YMMV and all of that.



> [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] handled this exactly right, IMO, by letting the argument take as long as required to play out and leaving mechanics right out of it.
> 
> The rogue example is great...but unfortunately also irrelevant to the question of "social mechanics".  Picking a lock is not* a social action, cannot (usually) be physically played out at the table by the players, and thus pretty much all RPGs have reasonably robust mechanics for resolving the attempt.



It isn't?

Okay, how about we change the lock to a guard we want to bypass and then we change the lockpicking to a bribery attempt?  Complications to the attempt can lose the offered amount without success or require offering more without surety.  The example of using complications to skill checks holds true even in social situations -- there's always a way for things to get worse.



> But social things can and should be played out by the players at the table, in the personae of their characters.



I have no problem with doing this, in fact, one of my loves as a player is acting as my character.  But, there's a discord here when I'm playing a character who isn't me and has entirely different strengths and abilities.  I disagree that I can play a character that is stronger than me and use the mechanics to effect this but I can't play a character who is more charismatic than I am or who has knowledge of magic I cannot but am forced to act these things out because of some idea that social interactions are sacrosanct and special.  You're more than able to continue to play that way, and your preferred edition clearly supports this with no codified social skills or resolution mechanics, but your insisting that its the proper way to play even in gamesystems were it's clearly NOT supposed to be that way is... weird.


----------



## Hriston (Apr 19, 2018)

Afrodyte said:


> That seems like how it's supposed to be used in 5e. I thought everybody did that (I know I do), but I guess not.




I'm not sure what you mean by "that". Although the rules leave what the DM awards Inspiration for up to the DM, the "typical" reason given is for playing your PC in accordance with its personal characteristics. The section on Inspiration doesn't mention, for example, awarding players with Inspiration for playing their PCs in accordance with the results of CHA checks made to convince their PCs of things. That's something I don't do.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> This ous the secind time you've said the mechanics say what the character thinks.  I missed that in my rulebook.  Where was it again?  You can pick which rules, any will do.




Well, ok, if we're going to start playing RAW sillybuggers, which, I figured in the context of this thread, we weren't talking about RAW, let's start with Performance:



			
				5e SRD said:
			
		

> Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.




Right there.  I'm telling other people how they feel about my music.  There's no particular reason that doesn't apply to PC's.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2018)

Sadras said:


> /snip
> 
> At what point do I call for a roll? Both the PCs and the NPCs had valid arguments. I preferred not to resolve this through mechanics and I think it was the right call for the emerging storyline.
> 
> It would have been detrimental to my table if I as DM had forced the PCs into a contested persuasion roll and the PCs had lost. @_*Hussar*_ can you not see the dilemma one could possibly face with your solution?




Then why would you call for a roll?  You already decided what the outcome here is and you don't want a random roll.  Great.  No problem.  Having mechanics does not force you to use those mechanics every single time.

You decided this is the "right call for the emerging storyline" and that's groovy.  My argument is that maybe a more interesting storyline might emerge from using mechanics to place that situation in doubt.  As a DM, I love it when the game goes in a direction that I didn't expect and that's what die rolling does for me.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

Ah, we're down to partial quoting, fisking, and gish galloping.  Good to know when you hit that point in the conversation.



Tony Vargas said:


> Yep.  And, sometimes, if you narrate a PC's state of mind or choice, certain players'll get all upset about it, as this thread illustrates.  So you let them choose their PC's state of mind, and let them make a choice, so they stay all immersed and maintain their illusion of being in control, and then narrate the results the game needs.
> 
> Sometimes the truth is unhelpful to an argument, yes.  The truth is some games leave the DM plenty of latitude to excise player agency via 'illusionism' (or 'Good DMing' or 'immersive play' or whatever, depending on who's making up the label), and others guard against it and/or build in greater player agency.  The game in question happens to be one of the former.  Arguing that you shouldn't do something the game enables you to do, and labeling that 'integrity' is essentially an argument that you shouldn't do it, because you said so.  I tend to think DMs should use the full bag of tricks the game gives them, to deliver the best possible experience.  In classic & 5e D&D, that includes not only engaging in illusionism, but also not using all the rules, not sharing which rules are & aren't being used nor the details of the mechanics when such would (for one instance) give away to the players things the characters don't know, and making up entirely new rules & mechanics (including situation-specific ones).




So many things wrong here.  In order, the "truth" you're trying to say is unhelpful to my argument is that you said you can ignore the play procedure and abridge player agency.  Hardly a truth that supports abridging player agency as it's a truth that just says player agency can be abridged.  So, then, a truth not helpful to your argument, either.

Secondly, pointing out there's another method of abridging player agency, namely Illusionism, doesn't show any good reason for abridging player agency.  That the rules don't prevent it is a strange argument -- are we to now assume everything the rules don't explicitly prevent is good technique?  Clearly, not.

Third, you claim that DMs use all the tool to get the best possible experience, which is where you again beg the question by asserting that the DM KNOWS that using these tools delivers the best possible experience.  ALL of my challenges to you have been on the basis that this is a flawed argument, yet you continue to point out ways to limit player agency and then claim that these ways show that the DM knows how to use them for the best experience, a thing the DM also somehow just knows.

This is a losing argument, Tony.  You haven't done the work to show that the DM limiting player agency will result in a better game that not limiting player agency.



> Are you sure labeling the thing you're arguing against 'corruption' isn't the circular thinking going on.  You're arguing DMs shouldn't use a technique that worked well for decades, and the reasons you come up with amount to pasting a label with a negative connotation over them.



Yes, I'm sure, because I'm not the one insisting that DMs have magical abilities to know when to limit player agency for the best possible game.  I'm not using a result as the basis of my argument.  I'm arguing from the premise that limiting player agency is bad in principle and not using a possible outcome to justify other actions.  So, yes, I'm absolutely positive I'm not engaged in circular reasoning where I'm using an outcome to justify a means to gain that will then cause that outcome.

As for successful, I disagree that the best possible game was caused.  I believe that sometimes a good game happened, and that many other times poor to horrible games happened when DMs limited player agency through Illusionism and railroading, but I'll let your present the evidence otherwise and promise to review it carefully.  So, then, we'll expect your proof that games that use Illusionism were all good?  I'll accept mostly good, if you like.

Snark aside, I don't doubt that good games happened with these things.  I've been in them.  I ran one, a few times, before I <cough> reformed <cough>.  But, I strongly believe that the strength of those games was in spite of tools like Illusionism and not because of it.  When I review my uses of it, I see that clearly -- I used a crutch to prop up my game because I was too married to my ideas.  I had good ideas, so it worked out, but I think that even better ideas would have happened if I actually let my players make choices that mattered and followed those.  It's gone smashingly since.  Hold on _lightly_.



> Nope, you don't (well, you do have more information about the campaign as a whole than the players, and there's factors like breadth of exposure to different systems, depth & years of experience, etc..). But, ultimately, DM's are people too.  But, as a DM, you do have a special responsibility to provide that better game.  So you do your best.



I have more information about _my ideas_, yes.  I've not seen a coherent argument that the DM's ideas are automatically the best for the game.  I've run for players that have far more experience than I.  As I get older, that gap closes significantly, but I'd say that two of my players have player longer, harder, and in more systems than I have.

The best I can do will generally be less good than the best everyone at the table can do.  Why not use my best to provide situations for the players to do things in rather than outcomes to tell them about?



> Really.  I'm not aware of any objective measure of subjective player experience - though I suppose a neuroscientist could hook players up to the right equipment and figure something out.  But, humans are pretty good at assessing how other human being sitting right in front of them and making no special efforts to mask their state of mind, feel about something they're doing.  We're social animals.



No, we've well established that you cannot provide any way to know what a better game experience is, yet you base your entire argument on something you can't show and just insist that we all agree that you can (and, indeed, any DM should) be able to discern strongly enough to remove the one thing the player gets to do at the table: make decisions for their PC.

Sorry, Tony, but the level of impact here demands a better argument than knowing it when you see it.  


> I believe it does, based on having done & seen other DMs do that sort of thing with great success for many years.



How much failure was there, Tony, across the hobby?  I hate to use another label, but confirmation bias seems to be strong, here.  YOU had a good game (or, at least, a not bad one) and you then assume that the reason for that good game was because you railroaded your players a few (many?) times?  Clearly, there can be no other reasons.

But, let me ask you something -- the most awesome moments of your games, where they the moments you limited player agency or where they the moments the players did something unexpected and you let it happen or they took a huge risk and the dice came out their way?  I can tell you that ALL of the awesome moments in my games were those.  



> I've also seen games where such isn't called for nearly so much (if at all).  They play better 'above board.'  But they give a different sort of experience, too.  'Less immersive' some would say.



Whoa.  You did not just compare limiting player agency to immersion, did you?  As in, less agency, more immersion?  Please tell me you see the wrong there and just made a hasty mistake in typing.  



> I'm happy to run either sort and use the tools they provide to deliver the best experience I can.



You just made the argument that limiting player agency is the way to provide the best experience you can.  How to you also claim to be able to run great experiences in game systems that limit or prevent your ability to limit player agency?  Also, are you actually making the claim the 5e (or any D&D edition) somehow requires limiting of player agency?!

]quote] Is it?  Getting something wrong is a plausible result of trying to determine something.  Further, the roll likely gives it away.  If the system is on a moderately high DC, Insight reveals that the subject is either being honest or 'holding something back,' on a higher DC it gives an idea what the lie may be, while hitting an easier DC means you 'can't tell,' and flubbing it gives you the opposite information from what's really going on.  If that were the system, you'd need to take the roll behind the screen, or the player can just believe the opposite of what you tell him when he rolls really low.  [/quote]
Yes, it's weird.  It's weird because there's nothing to say the person is lying except a hidebound reading of a die result.



> Logical from a gamist perspective, but leaving out a range of plausible results, so not so great from a narrative or simulation perspective.



Sigh, I'm not going to ask you to actually back that up with more than labels from the Forge because I really don't want to see the gyrations and assumptions necessary to achieve.  Let's just go with me saying this is absolute hogwash and ask to leave GNS Forge theory somewhere else instead of ineptly used to try to get a quick point score in.




> Even if the DM rolls behind the screen and tells you "you're certain he's telling the truth" (either because the roll was a fantastic success and the NPC was being truthful, or because it's an abysmal failure and his deception was high), you can choose not to believe him - he could be mistaken, for instance, or you could feel that believing him would be too risky, or it could be that you believe something else with such conviction that a mere one other person honestly believing & truthfully relating a contrary fact is unacceptable to you and can be completely discounted.
> 
> Obviously, internet forum debates stand as strong evidence of the plausibility of that last.



I'm sorry, but I'm throughly confused.  You're now arguing my position -- that the player should be free to chose their PC's actions and not be told what their PC thinks.  That the phrasing is in terms of what the character thinks is largely chaff, here, if you're actually saying that the player is free to ignore that and can choose to instead have their PC disbelieve.

And, if that's the case, if you've been arguing for a phrasing rather than an outcome, I'm at a complete loss as to why you failed so horribly to make that clear posts and posts ago.  So, I think that this is you trying to play both sides to secure another rhetorical gambit rather than an engagement of the ideas.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Well, ok, if we're going to start playing RAW sillybuggers, which, I figured in the context of this thread, we weren't talking about RAW, let's start with Performance:
> 
> 
> 
> Right there.  I'm telling other people how they feel about my music.  There's no particular reason that doesn't apply to PC's.




"Can" is doing a lot of work in that phrase for you, I guess.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> What is being proposed here is to take the "how the character chooses to react" for social engagements and hand it to the GM.



Actually, I think the only people in this thread making that particular proposal are those who are against it!

 [MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] have proposed using the Ideals/Bond/Flaws/Inspiration mechanic in various ways - perhaps awarding Inspiration for responsing to a persuasive NPC; or having NPC requests, in appropriate circumstances, engage with PC Ideals/Bonds Flaws, thereby generating an appropriate pressure on the player to respond.

I have pointed out how other functional social mechanics operate, and none of them involves the GM deciding how the PC is to react.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 20, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> In order, the "truth" you're trying to say is unhelpful to my argument is that you said you can ignore the play procedure and abridge player agency.



 Heck, in some games (most D&D eds, for instance), you can /follow/ play procedures and abridge agency.  Not ignore them, use them, arguably even as intended.  



> That the rules don't prevent it is a strange argument -- are we to now assume everything the rules don't explicitly prevent is good technique?



 Not anymore than to presume that a technique some rule in some game is designed to prevent is a bad technique in some other game...



> Third, you claim that DMs use all the tool to get the best possible experience, which is where you again beg the question by asserting that the DM KNOWS that using these tools delivers the best possible experience.



 DMs have been DMing for 40 years.  There's a vast pool of experience & knowledge out there.  Techniques like 'illusionism' get negatively-connoted labels like that precisely because someone is irate that so many DMs have been using them for so long, and yet D&D remains stubbornly dominant in the hobby.



> You haven't done the work to show that the DM limiting player agency will result in a better game that not limiting player agency.



 I've done a lot of DMing, and it's certainly been my experience.  It felt more like fun than work, for the most part, though.



> Yes, I'm sure, because I'm not the one insisting that DMs have magical abilities to know when to limit player agency for the best possible game.



 It's a non-magical ability, based on experience, applied to one table of gamers, in the moment.  Seems like they'd have a better shot at it than a game designer trying to make the same kind of judgement for everyone who might ever play his game.  



> I'm arguing from the premise that limiting player agency is bad in principle



 You might want to do more to establish that premise.  Do you consider it an axiom or something?



> So, yes, I'm absolutely positive I'm not engaged in circular reasoning where I'm using an outcome to justify a means to gain that will then cause that outcome.



 Rather you're engaged in the circular reasoning of assuming the conclusion in your premise.  A technique is bad because it's bad, so it's bad. 



> I believe that sometimes a good game happened, and that many other times poor to horrible games happened when DMs limited player agency through Illusionism and railroading



 It's a powerful tool, you can mess things up with a powerful tool.  That means 'be careful with it.'  Not 'never use it.'



> Snark aside, I don't doubt that good games happened with these things.  I've been in them.  I ran one, a few times, before I <cough> reformed <cough>.



So, convert's zeal, then.   OK.







> But, I strongly believe that the strength of those games was in spite of tools like Illusionism and not because of it.



IMX, it was often because of Illusionism being used to make the game good in spite of disruptive players or horrifically bad mechanics or the like, too.  There's a lot goes into a good game, and a lot that can make a game go bad... 
...if you're insistent that illusionism is innately evil, perhaps we can agree it's a necessary evil - more necessary the further the system in question strays from perfection?  ...nah, you've already dismissed that agree-to-disagree option....

But I don't see it as innately evil, in the first place.  It's a technique, you can use it to support a better play experience, or to be a giant douche to your players.  



> I've not seen a coherent argument that the DM's ideas are automatically the best for the game.



 They're the ones that are going to have the greatest impact on the quality of the game, so he better strive to make them so.



> No, we've well established that you cannot provide any way to know what a better game experience is



 You're saying it's impossible to tell if your players are having a good experience or not?  



> How much failure was there, Tony, across the hobby?



 Couldn't quantify it, of course.  But, between personal experience, hearsay, and the tremendous growth RPGs have pointedly _not_ experienced over the decades, I'd speculate a truly horrendous amount.  Some of it from misusing illusionism and other such techniques, some of it from not using 'em, some of it from D&D being the de-facto entry point for most folks...



> I hate to use another label, but confirmation bias seems to be strong, here



  You don't say?  It's sorta the gravity of the forums, really.  Nothing much stands against it for long.



> But, let me ask you something -- the most awesome moments of your games, where they the moments you limited player agency



 Nope. They were often moments that wouldn't have happened at all had I not done so earlier, though.



> As in, less agency, more immersion?



 Yep.  Immersion is this freakish, murky, subjective thing:  you can't design it into a game, you can't lead a player to it nor make him drink it - but, sometimes, you can avoid him going off about it being 'shattered' with a little judicious application of illusionism.  



> You just made the argument that limiting player agency is the way to provide the best experience you can.  How to you also claim to be able to run great experiences in game systems that limit or prevent your ability to limit player agency?



 Because they're different games.  Different games, different tools, different expectations from the players.   We've both clearly had experiences on both sides of this little game-theory-manufactured divide, so I don't see the contradiction.  

I'll happily put up a DMs screen and use illusionism to the hilt to run a good 5e game.  I'm equally happy to take it down and have everything in the open and above board, in a system & with a group where I find that works better.



> Also, are you actually making the claim the 5e (or any D&D edition) somehow requires limiting of player agency?!



 5e and classic editions mainly, yes, benefit greatly from the technique labeled 'illusionism,' which I wouldn't say is identical with limiting player agency - often it preserves the sense (illusion, I guess) of having agency, for that matter.  



> Yes, it's weird.  It's weird because there's nothing to say the person is lying except a hidebound reading of a die result.



 The ability to detect the lie is based on the skill of the liar and perspicacity of the one being lied to.  If that's modeled by a die roll in a given system, yeah, it depends on the result of that die roll.  That can make rolling the die in front of the player a problem, because it will create the impression his thoughts/judgements or actions are being dictated or coerced in some way.  Thus, take it behind the screen, so...



> You're now arguing my position -- that the player should be free to chose their PC's actions and not be told what their PC thinks.



 That should be the experience the player takes away from the table, yes.


----------



## Hriston (Apr 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Remembering, tracking & judging those personality traits for every character.




It doesn't seem more arduous to me than keeping track of character aspects is for the GM in a game of Fate. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Awarding inspiration is exactly that, a reward for 'good RP,' as the DM judges it, based on multiple traits per PC.  It could be /adapted/ to work more like aspects, which might not be a bad idea.




Clearly, I don't think it's much of a stretch. A fate point is a reward for accepting a complication from a compel, after all. 

Also, Inspiration doesn't need to be awarded for portraying multiple personal characteristics in a single act of roleplaying, if that's what you're saying. I'd imagine most instances of awarding Inspiration are for playing true to one personal characteristic or another.



Tony Vargas said:


> OTOH, it already clashes a bit with alignment and the whole very-traditional D&Dness of 5e, in the first place.  ::shrug::




I'm not sure what you mean by "clashes". Do you feel there's an overlap?



Tony Vargas said:


> You'd have to ask or gauge the starting attitude.  If you ask, some players are going to be inclined to whatever they think will 'protect' their control of the character via the highest possible difficulty.




Right, it would have to be a resource, possibly spent at character creation, establishing what's important to the PC and what its beliefs are, perhaps something like personal characteristics but with an assigned point value to represent how strongly certain beliefs and attachments are held?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> ultimately, no one can actually force anyone to do something by word alone



I'm not interested in the semantics of the word "force" in this context - but clearly some people can _cause_ other people to do things by word alone. This is how everything from social greetings in the street, to asking a store assistant where the Weet Bix are on the shelves, to advertising, to taunting and bullying, work.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There are a few different ways to think about resolving the situation where _the king asks the PC to rescue his daughter_, and - in the ensuing social resolution process - the GM (for the king) succeeds over the player (for the PC).
> 
> (1) The PC receives a buff/augment if carrying out the quest. (This is adapted from how The Riddle of Steel handles its "spiritual attributes'.)
> 
> ...





hawkeyefan said:


> These seem like mechanics from different games. So I don't know if they allow for PCs to react differently. Three of the four amount to the PCs making the same decision to help the king, and one is where the PC does not help the king.



_None_ of them involves anyone deciding to help the king. There is the grant of a conditional buff or penalty, the changing of a character trait (an Ideal), or the making of a sincere promise.

The player is free to choose what his/her PC does following the establishing of these consequences.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm not interested in the semantics of the word "force" in this context - but clearly some people can _cause_ other people to do things by word alone. This is how everything from social greetings in the street, to asking a store assistant where the Weet Bix are on the shelves, to advertising, to taunting and bullying, work.




Sure, that’s entirely true. But that’s why I used the word “force” and not “cause”. I don’t think the difference is a matter of semantics. 



pemerton said:


> _None_ of them involves anyone deciding to help the king. There is the grant of a conditional buff or penalty, the changing of a character trait (an Ideal), or the making of a sincere promise.
> 
> The player is free to choose what his/her PC does following the establishing of these consequences.




Ah my bad...I misunderstood what you meant in your original post. Thanks for clarifying. 

I could see using some method like 1 or 2 under the right circumstances. Pretty simple to implement, so I like that.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Not a bad way to put it.  I kinda like that.  What's the problem?




It does seem a little passive for my tastes.  The argument is something that just happens to your character rather then being something that your character does.



> Sure, and, like I said, the "king hook" example isn't a particularly good one IMO.  There's too much else going on for it to be very useful.  But, the villain bluffing the party?  I think it's a much better example.




Using the 3e Diplomacy rules for example, it would be amusing for the Party to go into the Temple intending to kill the BBEG and then one conversation later exit accompanying the BBEG on their Realms Shaking scheme.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 20, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> No real person is always good or always evil.
> No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.




If we were only going to play what real people could do then there is not much in DnD left for us to play.

That is why I was surprised that Alignment was the unrealistic thing.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> "Can" is doing a lot of work in that phrase for you, I guess.




Umm, what?

Here's the quote again:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.




Sorry, but, it's pretty clear.  How well you can delight means you are able to delight them in a range from not liking it at all (failed check) to delighting them very well (a very high check).  It's not can you change their minds at all, it's how much you can change their minds.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 20, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> All the alignments do, is describe if your character is more likely to commit good acts, or evil acts.



Okay. But they don't help a player at all to come up with a reason why the character is more likely to commit good or evil acts. So, what purpose do alignments serve, again?


Imaculata said:


> I think you are mistaking the intent of the alignment system. It isn't meant to be the final definition of your characters personality, they are a tool to help you get started. So if you state that your character is lawful good, that is a general description of your character's moral compass. But that doesn't mean that you can't further define your character, and it doesn't mean that your character blindly follows every law.



Then why are there alignment restrictions for classes, spells, and magic items?
Apparently, the game designers cannot decide what alignments should be: Just a loose guideline or a hard restriction? I'm getting ambiguous signals here!

Imagine for a second how you would create a PC if there was no alignment system. You'd come up with a personality and background, describe motivations and goals. Think about what your character likes and dislikes, what he hates, loves, and fears. Then look at the resulting character. Is there anything missing? What purpose does it serve trying to match an alignment to this well-developed character? What do you gain by trying to shoehorn the character into alignment categories? Chances are, if you didn't start out picking an alignment for your character, you won't find one that neatly fits.

Thinking in alignment categories is thinking in boxes, and when has that ever been a good thing?


Imaculata said:


> You could list ANY rule in the game, and come up with an example of how a player may  use it to act like a jerk. That doesn't make it an inherent flaw of the system.



Really? How about counting stories about jerks related by players here on ENWorld that result from problems with the alignment system. Then compare it to the number of stories about jerks resulting from the initiative system or weapon proficiencies. I wonder what the result would be?


----------



## Sadras (Apr 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Having mechanics does not force you to use those mechanics every single time.




True.



> My argument is that maybe a more interesting storyline might emerge from using mechanics to place that situation in doubt. As a DM, I love it when the game goes in a direction that I didn't expect and that's what die rolling does for me.




Sure. But who sets up the direction that the characters have to follow if the NPC succeeds on his persuasion check?
How can you not expect the outcome when you as DM stat the NPC, have a clear mind of the NPC's goals/motives and set up the possible directions of play prior to rolling the die.

It seems more the case that the DM won't know the direction of the game when he/she allows for players to decide their own character's fate rather than when the DM sets up all the parameters/possibilities.

I think using Inspiration likes carrots (Fate points) for NPC persuasion or introducing Complications is a better way to deal with it.
i.e. In my example, the homesteads make a Persuasion roll - they succeed.
Complication: That night one of the PCs has a disturbing dream about the party's decision to leave. PC recovers 0 Hit Dice due to the interrupted sleep.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> It does seem a little passive for my tastes.  The argument is something that just happens to your character rather then being something that your character does.
> 
> 
> 
> Using the 3e Diplomacy rules for example, it would be amusing for the Party to go into the Temple intending to kill the BBEG and then one conversation later exit accompanying the BBEG on their Realms Shaking scheme.




But, again, that's presuming that we're using 3e mechanics.  That wouldn't be a heck of a lot of fun would it?  There's a number of other techniques we can look at other than a simple binary pass/fail check.  That's a bit of a strawman isn't it?

Personally, I'm partial to the idea of a sort of skill challenge, or extended skill checks, whatever you want to call them, to come to a conclusion.  Could be something as simple as first past the post - whoever can make 5 arguments and 5 skill checks first (perhaps each one opposed, or against a static DC) wins.  Or, perhaps a sort of social combat system where you make checks, each success causes X "damage".  Take the PC's level vs the NPC's CR and go that way.  There's a bunch of options here.

Let's be honest, D&D sucks as far as these sorts of mechanics go.  

I'm frankly rather baffled by the push back here.  There's all sorts of games out there with social mechanics.  It's not like this is some bizarre notion out of thin air.  Social combat mechanics have been part of RPG's for decades.  It's that D&D has remained stubbornly set in the notion that anything that isn't combat should be free formed.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> True.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  I'm not arguing that there is one true mechanic out there that will solve all problems.  I'm simply arguing that the existence of such mechanics makes for a better game.

In your example, if you truly didn't have a horse in the race (heh, sorry, couldn't resist the joke) and either decision would result in an interesting game, that's when the dice should come out.  Sure, the players have their ideas of where they want to go, but, they don't have all the information.  Maybe that horse thing would be a ton of fun resulting in all sorts of interesting stuff.  I dunno.  Hopefully.  So, when we break out the mechanics and the players lose and go after the horses, it turns out that that was a great turn for the story of the game.  Or, the players win and they carry on their merry way.  

In either case, the game should result in something memorable.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 20, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Okay. But they don't help a player at all to come up with a reason why the character is more likely to commit good or evil acts. So, what purpose do alignments serve, again?




I see them as descriptors like terms such as elves, outsiders, elemental...etc

So in social encounters like NPC elves might gravitate towards elven PCs and perhaps trust their words more than the human or tiefling in the party, one could have angelic beings sense the Goodness of the PC and act more favourably towards them. That is one way I guess.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.  I'm not arguing that there is one true mechanic out there that will solve all problems.  I'm simply arguing that the existence of such mechanics makes for a better game.




Yeah, I can certainly support it as another tool that may be used at the table. 
The way I think I could implement something like this in a scenario at my table is if say one of the players asked me if I would allow them to make a persuasion roll to have his character convince a homesteader that to leave and seek safety in the city. 
I, as DM, would then negotiate with the player and say I would allow for such roll on these conditions. 

1. Success - Homesteader persuaded. Homesteader agrees to leave and seek safety in the city
2. Failure - Homesteader and PC persuaded. Homesteader agrees to leave and seek safety in the city after the party assists in rescuing the kidnapped loved ones.

So via negotiation between player-DM, player is allowed the roll if he agrees that his position can be swayed too.

That way, I get player buy-in, accepting the risks and player-agency is not compromised. I can definitely get behind something like that.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Or, perhaps a sort of social combat system where you make checks, each success causes X "damage".  Take the PC's level vs the NPC's CR and go that way.  There's a bunch of options here.




I improvised a homebrew social combat system for my 3rd edition campaign. 

I made a list of all the npc's, and what topics they cared for, were neutral on, and did not care for (yay, meh, nay). I also listed whether they were partial to agreeing with certain other npc's.

Whenever the players would try to change the opinion of the npc's, they would need to succeed at a diplomacy check (the DC determined by their arguments). If they tried to use a topic that the npc didn't care for, they would be a lot harder to convince. And of course each npc had their own innate DC. I also added secrets for many of the npc's, which the players could learn about, and use to undermine the position of their political opponents.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Whether you like it or not, the vast bulk of RPG play is either in D&D (all editions with 5e very much primary right now) or a very close offshoot (PF). So, bring in examples from niche games all you like; but if they don't speak to D&D/PF they might not get much traction.



FATE is not a "niche" game. Classic Traveller is not a "niche" game. Call of Cthulhu is not a "niche" game.

As I said, this is not a thread about D&D. It's a thread about the relationship between social resolution mechanics and player agency. If you won't talk or think about any mechanics but 3E's very poor Diplomacy mechanics, then you're not going to learn much about the thread topic!

To wit:



Lanefan said:


> An action declaration of "I try to persuade the king to up his reward for finding the princess" is not roleplay, it's the social version of roll-play.



And what make you think that is a permissible action declaration in a game which features social resolution mechanics? By your own account you don't play such games; I believe you've never read any of the rules for such a game; so what are you basing your conjecture on?



Lanefan said:


> Action declarations are not roleplay in themselves.



Again, how do you know? What experiences of the systems in question are you basing this on?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because? If Luke Crane and his gang want to use a mechanical framework to mediate PC vs PC argument, why is that awful?

I don't see why the fact that you don't want to play that way makes it awful that someone else does.



Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, what is your objection to other tables using techniques that you don't?



Lanefan said:


> The player(s) on the side that loses have just given up a great deal of their agency to game mechanics and meta-considerations; and further, are now forced by these mechanics into doing something their characters don't want to do.



How do you know their PCs don't want to do it? - maybe their minds got changed!

It's actually not wildly different from a coin-toss - which is a time-honoured method of resolving intractable disputes about what a group of friends should do next - except it's also integrated into the play of the game. 



Lanefan said:


> sometimes what the player wants to do and what the character wants to do are quite different; and here good roleplay dictates that the character's desires take precedence.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the argument becomes serious enough to split the party, so be it.



If the players wanted to split the party what makes you think they couldn't? The whole premise of a coin toss, or a social resolution roll, is that the PCs are going to stay together.

Just like in the real world, sometimes people agree to do things that they don't really want to do because they want to maintain some cooperative endeavour. It's hardly lacking in verisimilitude!



Lanefan said:


> If the players in their roleplaying of their characters have put those characters into an argument with each other, if you-as-DM have an NPC in the party you can throw in that character's in-character take on things, but other than that you-as-DM have no business using game mechanics to cut it short and-or force a resolution.
> 
> If the argument goes on all night, so be it.  Less work for you; sit back and enjoy your beer.
> 
> ...



Newsflash! - your experience is not the same as everyone else's.

Maybe my players don't want the argument to go on all afternoon. Maybe they are happy with a coin-toss mechanism, and maybe they like that _better_ when it correlates more closely to the fiction (eg by reflecting that a character with Leader expertise is more charismatic, and a character who is a noble will receive more deference).

You could ask, rather than just project your own experiences as if everyone approaches RPGing the same way you do.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 20, 2018)

Both @_*Lanefan*_'s and @_*pemerton*_'s experience have occurred at my table.
i.e. Running a split group or deference to Party Leader's decision or resolved with a coin/die toss.

Usually, after much discussion has already been had and when its gone full circle, if a player looks to me for a resolution that is when I get involved and put forward suggestions, otherwise I generally sit back and enjoy the debate that ensues.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 20, 2018)

Just a sidebar question: Is it normal to have such long responses? There are lots of them from different posters but quite often there are line by rebuttals of up to 20 different points. This makes them quite hard to follow and makes it seem less of a conversation as much as a court battle. There is no particular person but is seems quite common. After all isn’t brevity the soul of wit.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 20, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Just a sidebar question: Is it normal to have such long responses? ...(snip)... There is no particular person but is seems quite common.




Pretty much the standard. We are a pedantic group.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 20, 2018)

TheSword said:


> After all isn’t brevity the soul of wit.



I'm fairly certain that internet wall-of-text arguments is where "wit" goes to die.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Umm, what?
> 
> Here's the quote again:
> 
> ...




Again, "can" does a lot of work there.  A high performance check CAN delight a crowd, but it doesn't mean the crowd is delighted.  

I think a clear and persistent issue in how we see check is that you see the check as having a defined outcome -- perform will always determine how delighted any listener is.  I see the check as a possible means to resolve and uncertainty -- will the crowd be delighted?  The nuance here is that the outcomes in my view are determined by each individual situation -- a 15 on a perform check may delight a crowd that came to hear a famed performer play, while it may not delight the recently awoken and hungry dragon that prefers viola to the lute.  Delightment may not even be the outcome, maybe in the second case the check is to see if you can lull the dragon back to sleep, a case where the dragon's delightment isn't at stake.

This difference, and the way we're going to read the same sentence, is probably going to continue to occur.  I don't see a prohibition that the check automatically determines delightment because of the word "can".  You read "can" to mean that the check will do this delighting thing.  English is fun!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Umm, what?
> Sorry, but, it's pretty clear.  How well you can delight means you are able to delight them in a range from not liking it at all (failed check) to delighting them very well (a very high check).  It's not can you change their minds at all, it's how much you can change their minds.



 'Can' as opposed to 'may,' possibly? 







Jhaelen said:


> Okay. But they don't help a player at all to come up with a reason why the character is more likely to commit good or evil acts. So, what purpose do alignments serve, again?



 They make a game seem more like D&D.  Especially important if the game in question had "D&D" on the cover.



> Thinking in alignment categories is thinking in boxes, and when has that ever been a good thing?



 Organizing and categorizing things can be very helpful.



Hussar said:


> But, again, that's presuming that we're using 3e mechanics.  That wouldn't be a heck of a lot of fun would it?



 In this instance, the 3e mechanics aren't all bad, at least it's a diplomacy skill affecting attitude rather than a persuasion skill dictating choices.



> Personally, I'm partial to the idea of a sort of skill challenge, or extended skill checks, whatever you want to call them, to come to a conclusion.  Could be something as simple as first past the post - whoever can make 5 arguments and 5 skill checks first (perhaps each one opposed, or against a static DC) wins.



Nod.  And part of a more structured/playable sub-system like that could be setting the stakes/conditions, so that no one is surprised or feels betrayed by the results if they go against them.



> Let's be honest, D&D sucks as far as these sorts of mechanics go.



 A lot of folks are deeply invested in and feel very proprietary towards D&D or even just a specific one of it's editions.   So acknowledging suckage that way is asking a lot.


> I'm frankly rather baffled by the push back here.  There's all sorts of games out there with social mechanics.  It's not like this is some bizarre notion out of thin air.  Social combat mechanics have been part of RPG's for decades.  It's that D&D has remained stubbornly set in the notion that anything that isn't combat should be free formed.



 D&D is not set in that notion - it has lots of non-combat magic with explicitly spelled(npi)-out effects, including dictating what PCs think/feel/do.  
It is loaded with a tremendous amount of inertia from the 20th century, though.  For a good 25 years, D&D just didn't change appreciably, while other RPGs evolved into myriad, but still tiny forms, D&D remained the biggest coelacanth in the pond, and saw no need to do things differently.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> FATE is not a "niche" game. Classic Traveller is not a "niche" game. Call of Cthulhu is not a "niche" game.
> 
> As I said, this is not a thread about D&D. It's a thread about the relationship between social resolution mechanics and player agency. If you won't talk or think about any mechanics but 3E's very poor Diplomacy mechanics, then you're not going to learn much about the thread topic!
> 
> ...




Dude, D&D is a niche game.  FATE has a fraction of the market D&D has.  Even when talking only in the realm of D&D, FATE's still pretty niche by size and concept.  This isn't a bad thing, and I agree [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s dismissal because of nicheness is unwarranted, but you should recognize that the actual status of these things is pretty niche, even in the hobby.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Just a sidebar question: Is it normal to have such long responses? There are lots of them from different posters but quite often there are line by rebuttals of up to 20 different points. This makes them quite hard to follow and makes it seem less of a conversation as much as a court battle. There is no particular person but is seems quite common. After all isn’t brevity the soul of wit.




"Fisking" is a semi-popular way to dismantle an opposing argument rather than present your own.  It's a rhetorical trick, and usually goes alongside the 'gish gallop' where you throw so many different small roadblocks up to an differing viewpoint that the only way to coherent respond is point by point.  This drags conversation down into places where rhetorical tricks rule rather than actual points or arguments (the good kind, not the yelling kind).

And I'm as guilty as the next for being drug down.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Heck, in some games (most D&D eds, for instance), you can /follow/ play procedures and abridge agency.  Not ignore them, use them, arguably even as intended.
> 
> Not anymore than to presume that a technique some rule in some game is designed to prevent is a bad technique in some other game...
> 
> ...




Sorry, Tony, but I call bollocks on the ideas you've put forth.  You've assumed that restricting player agency is a good and results in good games, but you've got nothing to show that this is true -- you can't link restricting player agency to good outcomes.  All you've done is handwave in that DM's have special insight and just know, or that ridiculous piece of nonsense above where you try to link Illusionism to D&D's popularity in some kind of causal way.  Rubbish, badly thought out, poorly constructed, built in fallacies, rubbish.

If you decide to have some decent arguments at some point, hit me up.  But, if you're going to stick to "DM Knows Best" I think we're done with any productive conversation on this topic at this point.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 20, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> You've assumed that restricting player agency is a good



 No, you've assumed it's innately bad, and offered no support for that assumption.  

I've characterized it as a technique, and a powerful one.  It can be used to produce desirable or undesirable results, depending on the skill and inclination of the DM employing it.  



> and results in good games, but you've got nothing to show that this is true



 I'm sorry you choose to ignore decades of D&D's history.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> No, you've assumed it's innately bad, and offered no support for that assumption.
> 
> I've characterized it as a technique, and a powerful one.  It can be used to produce desirable or undesirable results, depending on the skill and inclination of the DM employing it.
> 
> I'm sorry you choose to ignore decades of D&D's history.




Tony, you're being facetious.  I was very clear that player agency is the only thing players get to bring to the table.  They're one thing is choosing what their characters do and how they spend their character resources.  Abridging that, especially for the sole purpose of maintaining the DM's vision of what _should _happen instead of what the player wants to happen is clearly removing the one thing the players get to do.  The reason for doing it makes it clear that the only thing at stake here is the DM's ego, not any idea that the player will be happier being told what moves to make rather than getting to play their character.  It also breaks a number of the guidelines in the rules about the roles of the players vs the role of the DM. 

As for the history of the game, you, sir, should be embarrassed to even try to make that claim.  Again, how many threads are there about horrible railroad games?  Your argument defends those as good games that made D&D popular alongside the myth that the good DMs can do good with the same technique.  You've defending blatant bad gaming with your argument.  You're ignoring that with your rose colored glasses and claims of DM ubermensch that are what made D&D great.  Clearly, D&D survives in spite of railroading and bad DMs reading their campaigns to their tables, not because of it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 20, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I was very clear that player agency is the only thing players get to bring to the table.



 So, no creativity, no interest, no imagination, no character portrayal?  
Just choosing actions that must have a meaningful impact that they're aware of up-front and can't ever be over-ridden nor obfuscated?  







> They're one thing is choosing what their characters do and how they spend their character resources.



 Illusionism doesn't take either of those choices away.  In fact, it can create the experience of making more, more difficult/interesting/risky, such decisions, for the player.  As the name suggests, some of those experiences may be 'illusionary,' but that doesn't make them any less real than the others, which are still imaginary decisions for imaginary characters in an imaginary world.  


> Abridging that, is clearly removing the one thing the players get to do.



 Obviously, removing it entirely would render the whole exercise pointless, but illusionism isn't an all-in, only way to run a campaign from beginning to end, it's a technique that can be used as much or as little as the DM judges helpful.  Abridging is not annihilating.







> As for the history of the game, you, sir, should be embarrassed to even try to make that claim.  Again, how many threads are there about horrible railroad games?



 Heh.  Like I said, a technique/tool that can be used for good or ill.  







> Clearly, D&D survives in spite of railroading and bad DMs reading their campaigns to their tables, not because of it.



D&D survives, and outshines all other RPGs in the market, in spite of a lot of things those other RPGs do in much more evolved ways - which, I'm afraid, is what motivates a lot of the animus towards it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, no creativity, no interest, no imagination, no character portrayal?
> Just choosing actions that must have a meaningful impact that they're aware of up-front and can't ever be over-ridden nor obfuscated?   Illusionism doesn't take either of those choices away.  In fact, it can create the experience of making more, more difficult/interesting/risky, such decisions, for the player.  As the name suggests, some of those experiences may be 'illusionary,' but that doesn't make them any less real than the others, which are still imaginary decisions for imaginary characters in an imaginary world.
> Obviously, removing it entirely would render the whole exercise pointless, but illusionism isn't an all-in, only way to run a campaign from beginning to end, it's a technique that can be used as much or as little as the DM judges helpful.  Abridging is not annihilating. Heh.  Like I said, a technique/tool that can be used for good or ill.  D&D survives, and outshines all other RPGs in the market, in spite of a lot of things those other RPGs do in much more evolved ways - which, I'm afraid, is what motivates a lot of the animus towards it.




Aaaand back to the fisking and the galloping.  Tell you what, I'm only going to respond to the first quote response, so you pick what you want me to respond to by making sure you get it up front.  To that end:


> So, no creativity, no interest, no imagination, no character portrayal?
> Just choosing actions that must have a meaningful impact that they're aware of up-front and can't ever be over-ridden nor obfuscated?



How do you propose that a player display creativity, interest, imagination, or character if not by having the power to choose how that character responds and acts?  If the DM is telling me what my character thinks, and I roleplay that, what did I bring to the table besides the performance?  Certainly I'm not engaged in my creativity, or my interest, or my imagination, or my idea of portrayal, no.  Instead, I'm the actor and you've handed me both the script and provided the direction -- I'm only a tool in your play.

Meaningful impact is being misused here.  Meaningful doesn't mean that the full ramifications of consequence of the action is known or immediate, nor does it mean that this action must be pivotal.  It means that each action should have weight -- that it represents what the player wants, and isn't an empty performance at the direction of someone else using the approved script.  A meaningful action can be as simple as eating breakfast, if that is important to the player as a feature of his character.  Meaningful means that it means something to the player, not that it is world-shaking.  The choice to go right or left at a fork can be meaningful, if the consequences differ.  Granted, that's of small meaning, but trying to make it seem like I'm arguing that every player action declaration be of utmost and apparent importance is badly mistating my position.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 20, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Aaaand back to the fisking and the galloping.  Tell you what, I'm only going to respond to the first quote response, so you pick what you want me to respond to by making sure you get it up front.



 Don't even know what that is, nor am I curious to find out.



> How do you propose that a player display creativity, interest, imagination, or character if not by having the power to choose how that character responds and acts?



 I'm not. 







> If the DM is telling me what my character thinks, and I roleplay that, what did I bring to the table besides the performance?



 Point is, even in that extreme case, performance is not /nothing/. 







> Certainly I'm not engaged in my creativity, or my interest, or my imagination, or my idea of portrayal, no.  Instead, I'm the actor and you've handed me both the script and provided the direction.



 Actors engage their creativity, interest & imagination, and put their own idea of a portrayal into it, even when given lines and direction.



> Meaningful impact is being misused here.  ... The choice to go right or left at a fork can be meaningful, if the consequences differ.  Granted, that's of small meaning, but trying to make it seem like I'm arguing that every player action declaration be of utmost and apparent importance is badly mistating my position.



 There is no difference, in the player experience delivered, between making a choice like that, and getting a result, and making a choice like that, and getting the exact same result.  

You can argue that in the first case, it was 'illusionism' because the DM decided the result, and applied it regardless of the choice, while in the second case it's agency, because any other choice would have led to a different result.   Or the other way around, because you can't tell, from the player's side of the screen, which is going on.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Don't even know what that is, nor am I curious to find out.



Okay.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Actually, I think the only people in this thread making that particular proposal are those who are against it!
> [MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] have proposed using the Ideals/Bond/Flaws/Inspiration mechanic in various ways - perhaps awarding Inspiration for responsing to a persuasive NPC; or having NPC requests, in appropriate circumstances, engage with PC Ideals/Bonds Flaws, thereby generating an appropriate pressure on the player to respond.
> 
> I have pointed out how other functional social mechanics operate, and none of them involves the GM deciding how the PC is to react.



One of the core examples thru this thread has bern does the duke convince your character to take the mission". If you say you have not sern anyone here who was for social mechanics workong on pcs who was also for that being possible, i am not gonna go back and ferret them out for you.

Another more recent part of the pro was tired so you are grumpy, iirc. 

If you are trying to parse reaction so that you mean "action you now take" as opposed to "are convinced" then not worth continuing, esp given the bad roleplaying hamner down.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 20, 2018)

There is a lot fisking going on. I do love the idea of only being able to respond to one quote... or to only be allowed to quote up to 5 lines.

I always thought fisking was what Popeye did out on the lake when Olive was getting on his nerves and he needed to get out of the house on a weekend morning. Ag ag ag ag ag!


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, again, that's presuming that we're using 3e mechanics.  That wouldn't be a heck of a lot of fun would it?  There's a number of other techniques we can look at other than a simple binary pass/fail check.  That's a bit of a strawman isn't it?




The whole mechanic does not sound like a heck of a lot of fun.  So not sure how much of a strawman it is to describe it happening in play.



> Personally, I'm partial to the idea of a sort of skill challenge, or extended skill checks, whatever you want to call them, to come to a conclusion.  Could be something as simple as first past the post - whoever can make 5 arguments and 5 skill checks first (perhaps each one opposed, or against a static DC) wins.  Or, perhaps a sort of social combat system where you make checks, each success causes X "damage".  Take the PC's level vs the NPC's CR and go that way.  There's a bunch of options here.




I know that some enjoy the skill challenge system.



> Let's be honest, D&D sucks as far as these sorts of mechanics go.
> 
> I'm frankly rather baffled by the push back here.  There's all sorts of games out there with social mechanics.  It's not like this is some bizarre notion out of thin air.  Social combat mechanics have been part of RPG's for decades.  It's that D&D has remained stubbornly set in the notion that anything that isn't combat should be free formed.




Personally I am not surprised by the push back in that it appears to be trying to replace the Roleplaying part of the game with more game part.  I mean we managed to survive decades of play with no roleplay mechanics at all but no harm to trying to tinker with the game especially with PF2 playtest in the works.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> FATE is not a "niche" game. Classic Traveller is not a "niche" game. Call of Cthulhu is not a "niche" game.
> 
> As I said, this is not a thread about D&D. It's a thread about the relationship between social resolution mechanics and player agency. If you won't talk or think about any mechanics but 3E's very poor Diplomacy mechanics, then you're not going to learn much about the thread topic!




It is interesting to see what the Indie game designers are doing.  I mean who would have thought about using a Jenga tower as a resolution mechanism.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2018)

TheSword said:


> There is a lot fisking going on. I do love the idea of only being able to respond to one quote... or to only be allowed to quote up to 5 lines.




So you say that we should be restricted to only writing 5 lines at a time?

I thought that was what Twitter was for?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I've characterized it as a technique, and a powerful one.  It can be used to produce desirable or undesirable results, depending on the skill and inclination of the DM employing it.



As you know, I very strongly dislike "low player agency" RPGing (what I would call railroading). But you'll get no argument from me that it is very common, widely advocated in RPG rulebooks (see eg 2nd ed AD&D for one highwatermark), and appears to be very popular.



Tony Vargas said:


> So, no creativity, no interest, no imagination, no character portrayal?



And clearly this is what a lot of RPGers seem to have in mind when they talk about _playing a game_ or _playing their character_. It is all quite compatible with having no agency in respect of the trajectory of play and the shared fiction.

An exception to my previous paragraph: in my experience playing CoC is all about this sort of creativity and character portrayal, and in modest doses it's quite fun.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I mean we managed to survive decades of play with no roleplay mechanics at all but no harm to trying to tinker with the game especially with PF2 playtest in the works.



D&D has "reaction roll" mechanics in all its classic versions. (I don't know if 2nd ed AD&D or 3E have them. 4e doesn't.)

Gygax's DMG expands the reaction roll mechanics into a rather intricate system for morale and loyalty.

Classic Traveller (1977) has reaction roll mechanics, and it has morale mechanics that apply to PCs as much as NPCs.

Various sorts of social mechanics, including player-facing ones, are as old as RPGing.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> One of the core examples thru this thread has bern does the duke convince your character to take the mission". If you say you have not sern anyone here who was for social mechanics workong on pcs who was also for that being possible, i am not gonna go back and ferret them out for you.



Well, I'm not goint to go back and ferret them out either.

 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] hasn't embraced the example. I already pointed to the most developed concrete proposal in this thread for incorporating social considerations in to 5e by way of Inspiration & Ideals/Bonds/Flaws. I've pointed to other RPGs which have working social resolution systems.

I just don't see the point of arguing against a position that has no serious advocates in its favour.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> D&D has "reaction roll" mechanics in all its classic versions. (I don't know if 2nd ed AD&D or 3E have them. 4e doesn't.)
> 
> Gygax's DMG expands the reaction roll mechanics into a rather intricate system for morale and loyalty.
> 
> ...




Reaction mechanics are a far different beast then what you are proposing and, if anything, simply state the initial conditions of the encounter rather then dictating what is going to happen.  And I understand the Loyalty and Morale mechanics never applied to PCs only to NPCs or at least I never experienced having a character that needed to make a Morale roll.  

I believe that Traveller has mechanics which can result in your character dying during character creation as well.  Is that something that we also need to have in DnD?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I believe that Traveller has mechanics which can result in your character dying during character creation as well.  Is that something that we also need to have in DnD?



I didn't think this was a D&D thread - it's in General RPG, after all. I though it was a thread about how social mechanics of varous sorts relate to player agency (whcih presumably also has various manifestations).



Shasarak said:


> Reaction mechanics are a far different beast then what you are proposing and, if anything, simply state the initial conditions of the encounter rather then dictating what is going to happen.



Classic Traveller has the following rule in relation to encounter rolls (Book 3, p 23):

Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. . . Reactions govern the reliability and quality of hirelings and employees. Generally, they would re-roll reactions in the face of extremeley bad treatment of unusually dangerous tasks.​
In the example of play in Moldvay Basic (p B28), the PCs meet some hobgoblins and the GM makes a reaction roll. This is modified by a player's declared action for his/her PC ("The DM decided that Silverleaf's open hands and words in the hobgoblins' language are worth +1 when checking for reaction"). As negotiations unfold, "The DM rolls a new reaction with no adjustments."

I have used that same technique in my Traveller GMing - ie rolling a new reaction, with appropriate modifiers (if any), to determine how NPCs respond in unfolding conversation or negotiation. I think it is consistent with the spirit of the rules presented on p 23 of Book 3.

And this is clearly not just setting starting conditions. It is a way of determining what happens, and is affected by player action declarations. When I GM Traveller, I actually have the players roll the reaction dice, which seems more "contemporary" in feel: it's analogous to a Diplomacy check in 4e, or a Leadership or Seduction or other influence check in Rolemaster.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I didn't think this was a D&D thread - it's in General RPG, after all. I though it was a thread about how social mechanics of varous sorts relate to player agency (whcih presumably also has various manifestations).




That does not answer the question of whether we should include Traveler style Character creation mechanics into DnD though does it?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> That does not answer the question of whether we should include Traveler style Character creation mechanics into DnD though does it?




Foul on the play.

No one has suggested any such thing.  The existence of those mechanics in one specific edition of Traveller does not have any actual relation to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Foul on the play.
> 
> No one has suggested any such thing.  The existence of those mechanics in one specific edition of Traveller does not have any actual relation to the discussion at hand.




Except that pemerton has been talking about Traveler and mechanics in Traveler (as well as other Indy games) for a while so lets talk about Traveler mechanics.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 21, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Then why are there alignment restrictions for classes, spells, and magic items?
> Apparently, the game designers cannot decide what alignments should be: Just a loose guideline or a hard restriction? I'm getting ambiguous signals here!
> 
> Imagine for a second how you would create a PC if there was no alignment system. You'd come up with a personality and background, describe motivations and goals. Think about what your character likes and dislikes, what he hates, loves, and fears. Then look at the resulting character. Is there anything missing? What purpose does it serve trying to match an alignment to this well-developed character? What do you gain by trying to shoehorn the character into alignment categories? Chances are, if you didn't start out picking an alignment for your character, you won't find one that neatly fits.



But then how would I apply alignment-based spells, classes and items; all of which I want in the game?

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 21, 2018)

TheSword said:


> There is a lot fisking going on. I do love the idea of only being able to respond to one quote... or to only be allowed to quote up to 5 lines.



If somebody writes a ten-paragraph post and within it makes ten different points I'd like to respond to, I'm going to break that post up into ten pieces when I quote it in my one-post response if ony to make it clear which bit I'm responding to at any given point.

I am not going to break my response up into ten different posts.  My post count is high enough as it is, and doesn't need any more help. 

Lan-"what is a gish gallop, other than a twinked-out fighter-mage riding a horse at high speed?"-efan


----------



## TheSword (Apr 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So you say that we should be restricted to only writing 5 lines at a time?
> 
> I thought that was what Twitter was for?




No just the quote of up to 5 lines. I’ve just quoted 3 of yours for instance.

So have people construct their own arguments rather than just quoting other people’s.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 21, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I am not going to break my response up into ten different posts.  My post count is high enough as it is, and doesn't need any more help.




This wasn’t directed at you personally, just a general surprise at the style of communication that seems to have developed. 

I think what I’m trying to say is we could all pick the points that we have the most relevant response to and make those points. Rather than trying to write an essay that comprehensively rebuts everything a person says. Essentially be selective with our quotes and responses. It’s just an observation.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2018)

TheSword said:


> No just the quote of up to 5 lines. I’ve just quoted 3 of yours for instance.
> 
> So have people construct their own arguments rather than just quoting other people’s.




Wait, where did my third line go?


----------



## TheSword (Apr 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Wait, where did my third line go?




I’m typing in iphone so it’s showing up as 3. I can see the problems  being legion already.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Wait, where did my third line go?



Sorry, you only get two today.

If the gods are generous you'll get four tomorrow to make up the average.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Except that pemerton has been talking about Traveler and mechanics in Traveler (as well as other Indy games) for a while so lets talk about Traveler mechanics.




No, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was discussing reaction mechanics in Traveller.  Bringing in other mechanics, that only apply to one specific edition of Traveller chargen mechanics in an thinly veiled attempt to disparage those mechanics is a pretty heavy handed tactic that has nothing to do with what is actually being discussed.

IOW, it's disingenuous.  

The point that was being made is that social mechanics have existed in some form in RPG's since pretty much day one.  Various RPG's have incorporated it in various forms.  So, why is this such a bizarre idea in 5e?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> No, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was discussing reaction mechanics in Traveller.  Bringing in other mechanics, that only apply to one specific edition of Traveller chargen mechanics in an thinly veiled attempt to disparage those mechanics is a pretty heavy handed tactic that has nothing to do with what is actually being discussed.
> 
> IOW, it's disingenuous.
> 
> The point that was being made is that social mechanics have existed in some form in RPG's since pretty much day one.  Various RPG's have incorporated it in various forms.  So, why is this such a bizarre idea in 5e?




I have no problem with social mechanics in 5e.  They don't, however, let me as DM tell the players how to play their characters.

Maybe I can say this a different way.  NO skill in 5e exists that lets a PC convince an NPC of anything.  Instead what happens in my games is the player declares an action to try and convince an NPC to do something thing and I determine if the outcome is uncertain.  If it is, I'll pick a attribute check and the player can suggest a useful skill to use with it, and stakes for success and failure will be set.  The player can then choose to roll or do something else.  The roll determines the outcome according to the stakes (this is often an informal process, there's not formal method I use to establish set stakes, but they're known).  A success means the PC convinced the NPC, not that the skill check did.  The skill check is just there to let us determine if the action succeeds.  It could just as well be for a completely different action declaration.

In this way, social skills are no different from any other skill -- they're useful when uncertainty needs to be resolved due to an action declaration.  There's nothing special about social skills, and since pick locks doesn't let me tell a player how to play their characters, I don't see why persuasion does.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2018)

> A success means the PC convinced the NPC, not that the skill check did.




That's an extremely fine line.  I don't think anyone is advocating for a system where you don't actually make any declarations, just skill rolls, and the PC/NPC is convinced to take a particular action.  Is that what you are arguing against?  Because it looks to me like the system that you are using is pretty much identical to what's being talked about.  The only difference being that I don't really have a problem with that same system applying to PC's.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 23, 2018)

Hussar said:


> That's an extremely fine line.  I don't think anyone is advocating for a system where you don't actually make any declarations, just skill rolls, and the PC/NPC is convinced to take a particular action.  Is that what you are arguing against?  Because it looks to me like the system that you are using is pretty much identical to what's being talked about.  The only difference being that I don't really have a problem with that same system applying to PC's.




Where in the play procedures I've presented is there a space where the NPCs declare actions?  NPCs are part of the framing of the situation, they have no independent status as actors in the game.  The play is: 1) DM narrates the scene, 2) players declare actions, 3) actions are resolved and the scene altered.  Repeat.  This is the loop, and there's not a spot in there where NPCs declare actions.  My NPCs just do things -- give a rousing speech, or try to convince the players to aid them.  That's the narration.  The players declare actions against that, the narration doesn't declare actions against the PCs.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 23, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I have no problem with social mechanics in 5e.  They don't, however, let me as DM tell the players how to play their characters.
> 
> Maybe I can say this a different way.  NO skill in 5e exists that lets a PC convince an NPC of anything.  Instead what happens in my games is the player declares an action to try and convince an NPC to do something thing and I determine if the outcome is uncertain.  If it is, I'll pick a attribute check and the player can suggest a useful skill to use with it, and stakes for success and failure will be set.  The player can then choose to roll or do something else.  The roll determines the outcome according to the stakes (this is often an informal process, there's not formal method I use to establish set stakes, but they're known).  A success means the PC convinced the NPC, not that the skill check did.  The skill check is just there to let us determine if the action succeeds.  It could just as well be for a completely different action declaration.
> 
> In this way, social skills are no different from any other skill -- they're useful when uncertainty needs to be resolved due to an action declaration.  There's nothing special about social skills, and since pick locks doesn't let me tell a player how to play their characters, I don't see why persuasion does.




Yeah basically agree with everything said here.  Non-magical forms of persuasion are just like persuasion IRL.  No matter how rousing the speech, there is no guarantee it will convince _everyone_, or anyone at all.


----------



## cmad1977 (Apr 23, 2018)

Reading through this makes me extremely glad that I don’t know some of the principal participants of this thread.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 23, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Where in the play procedures I've presented is there a space where the NPCs declare actions?  NPCs are part of the framing of the situation, they have no independent status as actors in the game.  The play is: 1) DM narrates the scene, 2) players declare actions, 3) actions are resolved and the scene altered.  Repeat.  This is the loop, and there's not a spot in there where NPCs declare actions.  My NPCs just do things -- give a rousing speech, or try to convince the players to aid them.  That's the narration.  The players declare actions against that, the narration doesn't declare actions against the PCs.




Just for clarity, when you say NPCs just do things - they do not declare actions, what about casting a spell, attacking...you classify those things as 'doing' and part of the narration/scene framing?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 23, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Just for clarity, when you say NPCs just do things - they do not declare actions, what about casting a spell, attacking...you classify those things as 'doing' and part of the narration/scene framing?



Yep.  Otherwise 5e really would deserve all those 'combat is too easy' complaints.  
Of course, it wouldn't be hard to have combat mechanics where the PCs declare actions and it's all resolved based on what they do, not on what the NPCs are doing (which is, again, part of the 'framing') it might seem a little unintuitive at first, it's not that the evil wizard throws fireball, it's that you dive for cover, thus you make a saving throw to resolve your action.  :shrug:


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> A lot of folks are deeply invested in and feel very proprietary towards D&D or even just a specific one of it's editions.   So acknowledging suckage that way is asking a lot.
> D&D is not set in that notion - it has lots of non-combat magic with explicitly spelled(npi)-out effects, including dictating what PCs think/feel/do.
> It is loaded with a tremendous amount of inertia from the 20th century, though.  For a good 25 years, D&D just didn't change appreciably, while other RPGs evolved into myriad, but still tiny forms, D&D remained the biggest coelacanth in the pond, and saw no need to do things differently.




Didn't change appreciably? Let's see: 1974-1999...
Changing the nature of the attribute modifiers and their ranges.
Addition and Deletion of core classes - thief wasn't in the rules until '76. Nor Ranger, Druid, Assassin, Paladin, Illusionist.
Change of 1d20 based combat from "alternate" to core (even if most used it as core)
Addition of Weapon Proficiencies (in 1E PHB, but not in BX; a variant appears in BECMI's M rules)
Addition of Non-Weapon Proficiencies (in 1E DSG/WSG/OA)
Switch to THAC-0 from strict HD or Class/level.
Nerfs and buffs in many spells between versions... the BX/BECMI Magic Missile is a much more buff spell (1d6+1 per missile) than the AD&D 1E version (1d4+1) especially since AD&D fighters and clerics are tougher (D10 v d8 and d8 v d6) than their BX/BECMI counterparts.
Changing from "All weapons do 1d6" to different dice by weapon?
Altering those weapon stats?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Didn't change appreciably? Let's see: 1974-1999



 TSR era, yes.  



> Changing the nature of the attribute modifiers and their ranges.
> Addition and Deletion of core classes - thief wasn't in the rules until '76. Nor Ranger, Druid, Assassin, Paladin, Illusionist.
> Change of 1d20 based combat from "alternate" to core (even if most used it as core)
> Addition of Weapon Proficiencies (in 1E PHB, but not in BX; a variant appears in BECMI's M rules)
> ...



All pretty trivial, really, compared to the changes introduced by 3e, let alone 4e, let alone the changes /back/ re-introduced with 5e.

If you're trying to quibble that there was an early flurry of additions to 0D&D from Greyhawk to Eldritch Wizardry, or some dramatic bloat as 2e was in its death throes, sure, there was.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> As you know, I very strongly dislike "low player agency" RPGing (what I would call railroading). But you'll get no argument from me that it is very common, widely advocated in RPG rulebooks (see eg 2nd ed AD&D for one highwatermark), and appears to be very popular.




Organized play and convention play often lead to strongly grasped plots where the only real question is "Did we pass the encounter?"

The railroad can be fun if the illusion of freedom is present - or at least the appearance of sidings on the rails...

My convention game for Star Wars saturday can be summed up into:

Encounter 1: Feral Mounts looking for treats, but which will panic and kill if hurt.
Encounter 2: Scout troopers on Speeder Bikes
Encounter 2A: Ties harass PC's if they steal the speeder bikes
Encounter 3: The base - once the alert goes up, everyone's hostile. until then, the staff try to keep the PC's in the Canteen.
Encounter 3A: the scientist - won't go without his family, but HQ is fine with his death.
Encounter 3B: the family - convince them you're the good guys. Especially while shooting the people feeding them.
Encounter 4: Ties harass vehicles as the PC's leave the base.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 24, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Reaction mechanics are a far different beast then what you are proposing and, if anything, simply state the initial conditions of the encounter rather then dictating what is going to happen.  And I understand the Loyalty and Morale mechanics never applied to PCs only to NPCs or at least I never experienced having a character that needed to make a Morale roll.



  In Traveller rules, they absolutely do apply to PC's. It's just that most GM's don't bother to apply them to PC's; most complaints about CT are really about GM's who misapplied or failed to apply the rules.



			
				CT B1-77 p 33 said:
			
		

> *MORALE*
> A party of adventurers (player or non-player) which sustains casualties in an encounter will ultimately break or rout if it does not achieve victory.
> At the point in which 25% of a party are unconscious or killed, the party must begin throwing for morale. Average morale throw is 7+ to stand, or not break. Va-liant parties may have a higher throw. DMs are allowed: +1 if the party is a military unit, +1 if a leader (leader expertise) is present, +1 if the leader has any tactical ex-pertise; –2 if the leader is killed (for two combat rounds, and then until a new leader takes control), –2 if casualties exceed 50%.



Direct C&P from the 1977 edition of CT.



Shasarak said:


> I believe that Traveller has mechanics which can result in your character dying during character creation as well.  Is that something that we also need to have in DnD?



It works for DCC...


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 24, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> In Traveller rules, they absolutely do apply to PC's. It's just that most GM's don't bother to apply them to PC's; most complaints about CT are really about GM's who misapplied or failed to apply the rules.
> 
> Direct C&P from the 1977 edition of CT.




The typical Loyalty, Obedience and Morale situations listed in the ADnD DMG give examples such as offered bribes, chance to steal goods, left alone, ordered into danger etc none of which really apply to PCs at all.  And of course the chance of retreating from combat again not something that you would expect PCs to have to worry about except from any fear effects.



> It works for DCC...




I never would have expected the superhero genre to have character death during creation.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Hey, if we could get Apprentice Tier out of the way in chargen, even if it meant half your scouts 'died,' before you ever played em, that'd be fine...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Just for clarity, when you say NPCs just do things - they do not declare actions, what about casting a spell, attacking...you classify those things as 'doing' and part of the narration/scene framing?




I've already noted combat is a special case, with defined U-GO-I-GO rules.  Past that, I'm not sure by the structure of your question what the last is referring to -- in combat or not.  If not, then, yes.  If in combat, again, special case and using the established rules, which don't include checks that make the PCs do something.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> ... in combat, again, special case and using the established rules, which don't include checks that make the PCs do something.



 Other than take damage, suffer conditions, including conditions like charmed or frightened that affect their behavior, and of course, little things, like dying.

I mean, the line is clear enough, and sometimes seems reasonable - and othertimes,  just silly.  In freestyle RP, how your character behaved as a result of a lethal attack would be exactly as negotiable as how he responded to a social provocation.  That's freestyle.  Actual games, though, have rules, and it's a bit odd to apply rules in some areas, but go more freestyle in others.  
::shrug::


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Other than take damage, suffer conditions, including conditions like charmed or frightened that affect their behavior, and of course, little things, like dying.
> 
> I mean, the line is clear enough, and sometimes seems reasonable - and othertimes,  just silly.  In freestyle RP, how your character behaved as a result of a lethal attack would be exactly as negotiable as how he responded to a social provocation.  That's freestyle.  Actual games, though, have rules, and it's a bit odd to apply rules in some areas, but go more freestyle in others.
> ::shrug::




No, consequences are not forcing the PCs to do something.  

As for different rules, where are they different aside from the NPCs having a distinct 'turn' to do something?  The combat engine is meant to settle things more tactically, going back to D&D's roots as a wargame, but aside from the ugoigo features, the actual play isn't really any different.  On the NPC turn, they do things, which establish framing for the PC turns, where they declare actions and the consequences of those actions are adjudicated.  This kind of duality is common in many RPGs -- they handle combat with more granularity than out of combat.  If you find that distasteful, take up one of the systems that truly uses unified resolution mechanics.  I think FATE might suit your bill.

But, if you want to play D&D, of any edition, you're going to find that combat is far, far more detailed in the rules than anything else.  Since both I and my players enjoy D&D, we keep that duality.  I still don't have NPCs use diplomacy in combat to make the PCs agree with them just like I do out of combat.  That doesn't change, and I really don't see the basis for your argument.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, consequences are not forcing the PCs to do something.



 I don't feel like arguing it from this side, but DA:  consequence of a failed save, consequence of taking more than your current hps, consequence of a failed contested check - not different in kind.



> combat engine is meant to settle things more tactically, going back to D&D's roots as a wargame,



 Interesting point.  In the wargaming of the day, it was player v player, maybe with a judge.  Both sides were the same.

At that time, D&D didn't have social skills (beyond, say, calculating the loyalty of your henchmen), by the time it did, it was further removed from those PvP wargaming  roots, so the PC & NPC sides of a social conflict being treated differently had become entirely thinkable...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I don't feel like arguing it from this side, but DA:  consequence of a failed save, consequence of taking more than your current hps, consequence of a failed contested check - not different in kind.




Sorry, but are you arguing that dying due to damage in combat and being forced to take the Prince's quest because the DM rolled one die are the same?  I disagree these are differences of degree, they _are _difference of kind.

Dying is a consequence of getting into combat.  It's staked at the start of the combat, every single time -- you might die if you do this.  On the other hand, meeting the Prince doesn't carry the consequence of his being able to make your character take on a quest for the Prince because he waggled his tongue.  You may declare an action that has a staked consequence on failure of accepting the Prince's quest and his terms, but that's your choice, just like combat is your choice.  Or taking other actions that have the known risk of combat occurring.

Dying is a consequence of the player's action declarations.  Having the DM tell the player that the Prince rolled a really high persuasion check and now you're taking his quest isn't a consequence of the player's action declarations.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, but are you arguing that dying due to damage in combat and being forced to take the Prince's quest because the DM rolled one die are the same?



 They are both consequences of resolution going against the player.



> disagree these are differences of degree, they _are _difference of kind.



 heck, they're barely differences in degree, you might only lose control of your dead character for a round before the cleric slaps him with Revivify.



> Dying is a consequence of getting into combat.  It's staked at the start of the combat, every single time -- you might die if you do this.



 Ambushes? Assassinations?



> On the other hand, meeting the Prince doesn't carry the consequence of his being able to make your character take on a quest for the Prince because he waggled his tongue.



 It might carry the consequence of being summarily executed, depending, but, hopefully, when you're entering into a negotiation (where persuasion would apply) it's part of the stakes that some agreement might be reached..


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 24, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I never would have expected the superhero genre to have character death during creation.



DCC here doesn't mean DCComics, it means Dungeon Crawl Classics; a fantasy system which most certainly does have - and expects - character death during (well, technically very soon after) the creation process.

DCCRPG uses what it calls the "funnel method" of character generation: each player rolls up 4 or 5 or 6 characters, then this massive 20-30 character party goes into a meat-grinder of an adventure (the funnel) with the survivors becoming the actual PCs who carry on with the campaign (if memory serves, the rulebook encourages the DM to try to ensure each player has at least one PC left after the funnel).



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Hey, if we could get Apprentice Tier out of the way in chargen, even if it meant half your scouts 'died,' before you ever played em, that'd be fine...



Well, in DCCRPG those who survive the funnel have just graduated TO apprentice tier - they ain't out of the woods yet! 

Lan-"or one could make one's entire campaign in effect a very big long slow funnel, with survival as the only goal"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2018)

Why are we still arguing that one single DM roll can change the PC's minds?  Does anyone actually think that this is what we're talking about?


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> DCC here doesn't mean DCComics, it means Dungeon Crawl Classics; a fantasy system which most certainly does have - and expects - character death during (well, technically very soon after) the creation process.




Well that makes more sense then having Batman die during character creation.



> DCCRPG uses what it calls the "funnel method" of character generation: each player rolls up 4 or 5 or 6 characters, then this massive 20-30 character party goes into a meat-grinder of an adventure (the funnel) with the survivors becoming the actual PCs who carry on with the campaign (if memory serves, the rulebook encourages the DM to try to ensure each player has at least one PC left after the funnel).
> 
> Well, in DCCRPG those who survive the funnel have just graduated TO apprentice tier - they ain't out of the woods yet!
> 
> Lan-"or one could make one's entire campaign in effect a very big long slow funnel, with survival as the only goal"-efan




I think I remember this game being talked about with regard to playing 0 level characters complete with 1 hp and a peg leg or some such.  I bet those guys would be looking for secret doors all over the place especially if there are any house cats prowling around!


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I don't feel like arguing it from this side, but DA:  consequence of a failed save, consequence of taking more than your current hps, consequence of a failed contested check - not different in kind.
> 
> Interesting point.  In the wargaming of the day, it was player v player, maybe with a judge.  Both sides were the same.
> 
> At that time, D&D didn't have social skills (beyond, say, calculating the loyalty of your henchmen), by the time it did, it was further removed from those PvP wargaming  roots, so the PC & NPC sides of a social conflict being treated differently had become entirely thinkable...




D&D at the time had NO SKILLS AT ALL.

But it did have Charisma. And a suggestion to the GM to use attribute checks to accomplish reasonable things.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Why are we still arguing that one single DM roll can change the PC's minds?  Does anyone actually think that this is what we're talking about?




It's the clearest exemplar of the divide in the actual underlying debate.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And this is worse.
> 
> The player(s) on the side that loses have just given up a great deal of their agency to game mechanics and meta-considerations; and further, are now forced by these mechanics into doing something their characters don't want to do.  And this is relevant: sometimes what the player wants to do and what the character wants to do are quite different; and here good roleplay dictates that the character's desires take precedence.  I've played characters into adventures I-as-player had no interest in at all; and I've had characters pull me out of adventures that I-as-player were really keen on.
> 
> ...




I'm generally of Lanefan's mind here and I normally don't have a problem with game mechanics taking away agency, even via mundane methods... but only for a little while. I have no problem with the otherwise controversial Pathfinder feat Antagonize - which allows a character to force another to launch an attack at them via a skill check. But then it's a very short duration - just enough time for the target to get a turn and be compelled to attack the antagonizing character (be it a PC or NPC). The effect is pretty much limited to just that one attack and that's an important distinction when overriding or compelling a player's control over his PC. The general trend in D&D/PF and superhero games is to generally *limit* the effects of mind control-type abilities - either to short durations or to non-self destructive behaviors. 

Using a social skill or other mechanic to engage in PvP to determine the outcome of an argument or compel a PC to agree to rescue the nobleman's daughter is a bit more of an open-ended time frame. If one crewmember wins the argument (via some kind of mechanical resolution) over the others on what mission to pursue next in Traveller, that has a duration of weeks in all likelihood (considering each FTL jump is 1 week). The same may be true of persuading the PCs to rescue someone's daughter - a fairly long duration may follow. This is directly contrary to the trend you see in powers, magical and super, that can be expected to override someone's will in extraordinary ways (in contrast to the ordinary ways of making a good pitch and offering a lot of money as a bribe). And that's why certain kinds of agency affecting examples that have been used here, I find very problematic.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 24, 2018)

It just so happens that in the last session of my 3.5 pirate campaign (just this weekend), an interesting situation came up regarding player agency.

The players were about to start a boss fight with an evil cult leader, whom they had no reason to trust. However, he was accompanied by a Frost Wind Virago. An evil frost fey, although all they could tell about her at first glance, was that she was a stunningly beautiful fey. The Frost Wind Virago is like a siren. She has a supernatural ability to draw her enemies towards her with her captivating voice (if they fail their will save), and then they just stand there taking a beating and offering no resistance.

But during the opening of the fight, I actually had her not use this ability. Instead I had her do as the flavor text describes: She tries to get close to her enemies, using deception and misdirection, only to activate her special powers to freeze and stun her enemies.

She approached the players, begging them to see reason, and to have a cease fire. She manipulated the elves in the party, by pretending to be an ally to the elves, knowing they might be more prone to trusting a fey. She even got them to willingly hand over her magic bow (which they had looted from her room), by lying that it was a gift from the elves to her. It was a parley situation, as is of course fitting in a pirate campaign. But I rolled no skill checks for her at all. She told them that her lover (the evil cult leader) was not the man they believed him to be. She also praised one of the PC's for being 'a reasonable man, willing to see reason'. I just used lies and manipulation to get the players to trust her, so that she could get the first shot in.

I was surprised it worked so well, since the fight initially started with the players having the advantage over their enemies. I think one or two of the players knew that they might be walking into a trap, but they decided their characters would not think the same.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> It's the clearest exemplar of the divide in the actual underlying debate.




But, it's not an exemplar of anything other than this strange straw man that people insist on building.  No one has actually argued in favor of a single die roll changing PC's minds.  The closest might be morale checks, but, even then, those only come into play after considerable other events have occurred.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, it's not an exemplar of anything other than this strange straw man that people insist on building.  No one has actually argued in favor of a single die roll changing PC's minds.  The closest might be morale checks, but, even then, those only come into play after considerable other events have occurred.



Well, then, how many checks do you think it should take before the GM can tell the layer what their character thinks?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> They are both consequences of resolution going against the player.




No, ones the consequence of combat, the other is the consequence of a petulant DM trying to force his preferred outcome on the players.  Different.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, then, how many checks do you think it should take before the GM can tell the layer what their character thinks?



The argument in question seems less that the roll/check tells that the player _what_ their character thinks, but instead that the check places narrative restrictions on how the player can interpret/roleplay what the character can think.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> The argument in question seems less that the roll/check tells that the player _what_ their character thinks, but instead that the check places narrative restrictions on how the player can interpret/roleplay what the character can think.



Can you provide an example of this?  Because this really seems like a semantic rewriting to avoid the conclusion.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, then, how many checks do you think it should take before the GM can tell the layer what their character thinks?




Just to answer a question with a question, how many checks do you think it should take before the GM can kill a PC?

To me, the answer is, it depends.  It's going to depend on a lot of factors.  By and large though, we frown these days on a single check killing a PC, despite that being pretty common once upon a time.  In combat, it's going to take a LOT of checks for that kobold to kill that 10th level barbarian, but, a whole lot fewer checks for that elder wyrm red dragon to do the same thing.

So, other than, "Very, very likely more than one", I don't think you can come up with a one size fits all answer to that question.  What are the stakes?  Obviously a higher stake situation should probably require more checks.  If someone's trying to convince Captain America to side with Red Skull, that's going to take a heck of a lot of checks.  OTOH, trying to convince Cap to get a Facebook account probably isn't that much of a challenge.

Telling the player that he enjoyed the music because the NPC bard scored high enough on the DC is an example of a single check I suppose.  That one's right there in the rules.  Sorry, but the English teacher in me rejects your rather contorted interpretation of the language.  It's pretty clear what the skill says.  Conversely, trying to persuade your character to take up this challenge as opposed to continuing on your merry way (a la the earlier example of the horse people) would likely require multiple checks, probably some sort of first past the post with each side making arguments and counter arguments and then opposed checks.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, ones the consequence of combat, the other is the consequence of a petulant DM trying to force his preferred outcome on the players.  Different.




Nice.  Because only petulant DM's would ever do this.    Careful, your biases are showing.  

Never minding the vast number of games out there where you can absolutely do this, not only can you do it, but you, as the GM/DM are EXPECTED to do it.  Good grief, could you imagine trying to run Call of Cthulhu without sanity rules?  Or a Fate game where your DM can never, ever use your Aspects.  

Again, I'm absolutely baffled at the push back here.  There's a host of games out there that do this and there's certainly no need to characterize all the GM's of those games as "petulant".


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Can you provide an example of this? Because this really seems like *a semantic rewriting to avoid the conclusion.*



The bold may be the most cogent summary of this entire thread's discourse.  

I would say that checks, in general, are less about particulars and more about establishing restrictions on the possible interpretation of dice resolution results within the in-game narrative. And here is a good example of that in action: 


Ovinomancer said:


> Firstly, there's using Insight as a "truth check."  A success would mean I would reveal to the players if the NPC was lying or telling the truth.  A failure would would mean I tell the players they can't tell one way or the other.



In this case, the player's thoughts are essentially restricted by the dice results. If they succeed, they have no choice but to know that the NPC is lying or telling the truth. If they fail, then their thoughts are restricted to the realm of "doubt," because they failed to gain certainty. Likewise, a Lore/Knowledge check basically curtails the thoughts of the PC such that their thoughts may successfully or fail to recall information. A character's thoughts in the narrative are inherently restricted through the success and/or failure of the check. 

And sometimes checks are not always needed, as a GM may declare that a PC simply knows something (or ineligible to roll), though the player has no actual agency in knowing or not knowing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, ones the consequence of combat, the other is the consequence of a petulant DM trying to force his preferred outcome on the players.  Different.





Ovinomancer said:


> this really seems like a semantic rewriting to avoid the conclusion.




Both are consequences of the resolution mechanics going against the player, one in the wargaming-heritage 'combat pillar,' one in the more recently elucidated interaction pillar.  
A petulant DM could kill off your character in combat, or slap a Geas on him, or narrate failure in any given social or interaction challenge in a particularly vindictive way, sure, but it doesn't change the nature of the resolution mechanics, themselves, nor make the results of the resolution in some way 'not a consequence' of it going against you.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that checks, in general, are less about particulars and more about establishing restrictions on the possible interpretation of dice resolution results within the in-game narrative. And here is a good example of that in action:
> In this case, the player's thoughts are essentially restricted by the dice results. If they succeed, they have no choice but to know that the NPC is lying or telling the truth. If they fail, then their thoughts are restricted to the realm of "doubt," because they failed to gain certainty. Likewise, a Lore/Knowledge check basically curtails the thoughts of the PC such that their thoughts may successfully or fail to recall information. A character's thoughts in the narrative are inherently restricted through the success and/or failure of the check.
> 
> And sometimes checks are not always needed, as a GM may declare that a PC simply knows something (or ineligible to roll), though the player has no actual agency in knowing or not knowing.




But none of those "constraints of thought" actually tell the PC *how they feel* about the information they've received. None of them constrain *what they must do*. And those issues are, as I see them, fundamentally different from being able to spot a tell when being bluffed or being able to recall a tidbit of information.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Nice.  Because only petulant DM's would ever do this.    Careful, your biases are showing.



Why would you think I wasn't being careful or that I wanted to not show my biases?


> Never minding the vast number of games out there where you can absolutely do this, not only can you do it, but you, as the GM/DM are EXPECTED to do it.  Good grief, could you imagine trying to run Call of Cthulhu without sanity rules?  Or a Fate game where your DM can never, ever use your Aspects.
> 
> Again, I'm absolutely baffled at the push back here.  There's a host of games out there that do this and there's certainly no need to characterize all the GM's of those games as "petulant".



The "but thers anther game out there where this might happen" argument is lazy.  Especially when you misrepresent the ones you pick.  Sanity effects are a consequence of player declared actions, not things the NPCs roll against the PCs to force them to do things.  Aspect use in FATE can be negated by the player if they don't agree. Both are explicitly staked by the players as part of playing the gane.  Three things being discussed in this thread are the use of skills by NPCs to make PCs do things that the players did not stake.  If you have the players stake the outcomes, then you aren't what I'm talking about.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Both are consequences of the resolution mechanics going against the player, one in the wargaming-heritage 'combat pillar,' one in the more recently elucidated interaction pillar.
> A petulant DM could kill off your character in combat, or slap a Geas on him, or narrate failure in any given social or interaction challenge in a particularly vindictive way, sure, but it doesn't change the nature of the resolution mechanics, themselves, nor make the results of the resolution in some way 'not a consequence' of it going against you.




No, they're not, because when the player snares in combat, PC death is staked as part of that decision.  I  The other hand, players don't stake believing the Prince on the outcome of the Prince's persuasion check.  If you have an is situation where the players have staked this, then, okay, all good.

The real crux of my argument is based upon what the players know are the stakes.  Meeting an NPC doesn't usually involve staking that you will believe the NPC and agree with them if they roll a high enough skill check.  Getting into combat does stake PC death (or not, depending on the system and for a system that doesn't stake PC death in combat, our would be a bad play to kill a PC).  If you're handling social engagements by seeing explicit stakes on NPC rolls and the players have opt into that stake setting, all goid, agency is not infringed.  If the DM is unilaterally seeing stakes and conducting the resolution, agency is being needlessly infringed.  

I've yet to see a concrete example of where agency being infringed led to a better outcome than not infringing.  You've claimed this is so, but not shown your work.

And, again, listing all the ways that a GM could infringe agency is not an argument for why they should.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, they're not, because when the player snares in combat, PC death is staked as part of that decision.  I  The other hand, players don't stake believing the Prince on the outcome of the Prince's persuasion check.  If you have an is situation where the players have staked this, then, okay, all good.



 Again, an ambush or an assassination attempt can force the PCs into combat without players acceding to said life & death stakes.  But, no, I don't think it makes much sense to assume PCs entering into a meeting with a prospective patron without the idea that they might go on a mission being on the table...
... I mean, a comparatively important noble asks for a meeting with a bunch of adventurers, what does anyone think the point of such a meeting might be?   "I want your opinion on my new drapes?"  

The example where conforming to the result of a social resolution becomes problematic is more than a little forced, really.



> I've yet to see a concrete example of where agency being infringed led to a better outcome than not infringing.



An unverifiable anecdote on the internet will convince you?   That'd be a first.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Again, an ambush or an assassination attempt can force the PCs into combat without players acceding to said life & death stakes.  But, no, I don't think it makes much sense to assume PCs entering into a meeting with a prospective patron without the idea that they might go on a mission being on the table...
> ... I mean, a comparatively important noble asks for a meeting with a bunch of adventurers, what does anyone think the point of such a meeting might be?   "I want your opinion on my new drapes?"
> 
> The example where conforming to the result of a social resolution becomes problematic is more than a little forced, really.




And I'd argue that ambushes sprung without warning that kill characters are poor play.

If the players are aware that attending the conference stakes their characters choice in what to believe, sir, fine, so long as they can choose to not attend.  But forcing acceptance that the DM will tell you what you're character thinks because they show up at a conference is pretty weak.

Seriously, with all the levers the GM has to encourage or hook players, why the strong defense for the most lazy route of usurping player agency?  I don't do this and I have no problems hooking players.  I actually just pay attention to what my players tell me and go with that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> And I'd argue that ambushes sprung without warning that kill characters are poor play.
> If the players are aware that attending the conference stakes their characters choice in what to believe, sir, fine, so long as they can choose to not attend.



 I can't imagine an ambush being sprung /with/ warning ("Excuse me, but this in an ambush, if you don't want to be ambushed, you should go back and take the other fork" "Oh, thank you, no, I'd rather not be ambushed - guys, we're heading back and taking the left fork"  "Whew, so glad we're not being railroaded..."  "Well, that's another batch gone  ...I still say we'd make more money as bandits if we didn't do it this way."), it'd just not be an ambush anymore.  But OK, that's at least consistent:  if you walk into an ambush, you risk getting killed, if you sit down at the negotiating table, you risk making a bad deal.



> Seriously, with all the levers the GM has to encourage or hook players, why the strong defense for the most lazy route of usurping player agency?



 Another thing that makes it a bad example, I guess.  I see the issue more as are we modeling characters or not.  

Though, on the closely-related topic of illusionism...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I can't imagine an ambush being sprung /with/ warning ("Excuse me, but this in an ambush, if you don't want to be ambushed, you should go back and take the other fork" "Oh, thank you, no, I'd rather not be ambushed - guys, we're heading back and taking the left fork"  "Whew, so glad we're not being railroaded..."  "Well, that's another batch gone  ...I still say we'd make more money as bandits if we didn't do it this way."), it'd just not be an ambush anymore.  But OK, that's at least consistent:  if you walk into an ambush, you risk getting killed, if you sit down at the negotiating table, you risk making a bad deal.
> 
> Another thing that makes it a bad example, I guess.  I see the issue more as are we modeling characters or not.
> 
> Though, on the closely-related topic of illusionism...



Ha.  Very droll.  I meant I  the sense that ambushes are a possibility.  Ninjas inside the safe base hitting PCs independently in overwhelming numbers for no previously established reason is bad.  Getting jumped by orcs in the wilderness isn't, because the played have warning this is a dangerous area and can declare actions to modify their risk.  Presumably ambushes happen in your game in ways and places that the players aren't surprised even if the PCs ate nechanivally surprised, yes?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ha.  Very droll.  I meant I  the sense that ambushes are a possibility. [] Ninjas inside the safe base hitting PCs independently in overwhelming numbers for no previously established reason is bad.  Getting jumped by orcs in the wilderness isn't, because the played have warning this is a dangerous area and can declare actions to modify their risk.  Presumably ambushes happen in your game in ways and places that the players aren't surprised even if the PCs ate nechanivally surprised, yes?



 Yeah, I totally get it, like I said, it's consistent.  You go into a region where bandits are known to ply their trade, there's a risk of being jumped and killed, that's part of the stakes.  You go into a civilized/patrolled area, that's not likely, but you might get conscripted by the local lord, or maybe targeted by grifters from the local thieves guild & sold a bogus treasure map.


----------



## HasturtheUnnameable (Apr 25, 2018)

sirlarkins said:


> What do you think? What's your personal "red line" for behavioral mechanics? Do behavioral mechanics have any place in RPGs, and if so, to what extent? Most crucially: do they enhance narrative or detract from it?




I usually try to limit forced PC actions to things caused by Disadvantages they took in character creation, or inherent limitations of the race they chose. And even in the latter case, I usually just present them with the reason they should act a certain way, trying not to force them if possible.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 25, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, then, how many checks do you think it should take before the GM can tell the layer what their character thinks?




I'm good with one, maybe 2, opposed rolls.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> even if the PCs ate nechanivally surprised, yes?



 Spell check knows 'nechanivally' is a word, nothing else in the world seems to, but I suppose it'd be surprising if you ate it. 

...technology, making our lives easier...




> Presumably ambushes happen in your game in ways and places that the players aren't surprised even if the PCs are mechanically surprised, yes?



 In my game, sure, I can be more than a little cliched, and I let dice dictate what PCs think & feel, like "nice day, I wonder if that's a larch... ouch! Bandits? I'm so surprised!" Which, obviously, undercuts their agency and shatters their immersions...


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 25, 2018)

billd91 said:


> But none of those "constraints of thought" actually tell the PC *how they feel* about the information they've received. None of them constrain *what they must do*. And those issues are, as I see them, fundamentally different from being able to spot a tell when being bluffed or being able to recall a tidbit of information.



The idea of separating _what we feel_ and _what we think_ strikes me as an unhelpful false dichotomy in this case, as the point is that the narrative thoughts of the PC can and are curtailed by the results of checks. Because bluffing, insight, knowledge, etc. are not purely "information" but also rely heavily on the realm of human cognitive processing of feelings, intuition, and emotions.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Spell check knows 'nechanivally' is a word, nothing else in the world seems to, but I suppose it'd be surprising if you ate it.
> 
> ...technology, making our lives easier...




Ha, again.  Very droll.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> The idea of separating _what we feel_ and _what we think_ strikes me as an unhelpful false dichotomy in this case, as the point is that the narrative thoughts of the PC can and are curtailed by the results of checks. Because bluffing, insight, knowledge, etc. are not purely "information" but also rely heavily on the realm of human cognitive processing of feelings, intuition, and emotions.




I'm not really seeing how. Being subjected to bluffing and making an insight check involve the ability to read someone or a situation, judge motivations - not really seeing how that determines how someone emotionally feels about a situation. Knowledge checks determine what the PC can recall at the time, what they might have learned in the past - again, not really seeing how that determines how someone emotionally feels about that information. I don't really see how affecting how someone feels about something, their emotional response to it, can be justified in the same manner as a roll to determine how much they can observe about the environment around them or what they know.

This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to allow limited ability to actually control a PC with a skill check. I went into that earlier. It's just that the justification for doing so has to be based on something other than lumping them in with insight/knowledge/perception and other checks because they also limit a character's mental state in a situation.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 25, 2018)

billd91 said:


> I'm not really seeing how.



That's fine. 



> Being subjected to bluffing and making an insight check involve the ability to read someone or a situation, judge motivations - not really seeing how that determines how someone emotionally feels about a situation. Knowledge checks determine what the PC can recall at the time, what they might have learned in the past - again, not really seeing how that determines how someone emotionally feels about that information. I don't really see how affecting how someone feels about something, their emotional response to it, can be justified in the same manner as a roll to determine how much they can observe about the environment around them or what they know.



Because making a reading or judgment is not entirely information-based, but is also rooted in emotions, feelings, and such. Cognitive science, behavioral psychologists, and the like have studied that "facts" and "information" often carry emotional, ethical, or "feeling" components and are not strictly something separate from some sort of objective rationalism. So the results of any such roll would inherently curtail what the player may feel is permissible for their character to feel. If one made a successful Insight check, for example, then the player would almost be daft to say "I feel that they are being untruthful," because the dice resolution establishes that the character's Insight falls within a certain spectrum of thought.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> That's fine.
> 
> Because making a reading or judgment is not entirely information-based, but is also rooted in emotions, feelings, and such. Cognitive science, behavioral psychologists, and the like have studied that "facts" and "information" often carry emotional, ethical, or "feeling" components and are not strictly something separate from some sort of objective rationalism. So the results of any such roll would inherently curtail what the player may feel is permissible for their character to feel. If one made a successful Insight check, for example, then the player would almost be daft to say "I feel that they are being untruthful," because the dice resolution establishes that the character's Insight falls within a certain spectrum of thought.




"I have no evidence, but my gut says they're lying" is a _perfectly_ reasonable response to a failed insight cbeck.   Heck, it's a reasonable response to a successful insight check that provided information to show that the NPC _isn't_ lying.

You cite cognitive science but the PC's mind doesn't operate according to cognitive science, the player's mind does.  So, if the player declares the PC still doesn't believe, there no PC cognitive process in effect for this.  Cognitive science is a pointless aside when discussing fictional minds.

Further, I thought it was a finding of cognitive science that people's beliefs are often in direct opposition to known facts.  So, by that, have the PC believe the NPC ous lying really doesn't have anything to do with how the skill checks resolved, as those establish what the PC ous able to know, not what the PC believes.

And, finally, I've yet to see an example of how this kind of GM force results in improved play.  It seems that thers an unsupporyed assumption that abridging player agency in this manner is useful, but what is it useful for?  I suppose, if you're invested in a process sim, and consider the skill checks to be simulations, then there's use because it fits the objective of process sim play.  But you're a limited worldbuilding proponent (which is absolutely fine and good) and that's not usually part of the process sim style play.  I'm not following the use you see for the technique.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 25, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> "I have no evidence, but my gut says they're lying" is a _perfectly_ reasonable response to a failed insight cbeck.   Heck, it's a reasonable response to a successful insight check that provided information to show that the NPC _isn't_ lying.



I know, and this is perhaps a sign that we are talking past each other. But that is my point, namely that a failed (or successful) check provides a soft limitation on what a PC can think. Your quote contains a caveat. A self-aware limitation brought about by an inability to confirm through the intution of Insight your "gut." 



> You cite cognitive science but the PC's mind doesn't operate according to cognitive science, the player's mind does.  So, if the player declares the PC still doesn't believe, there no PC cognitive process in effect for this.  Cognitive science is a pointless aside when discussing fictional minds.
> 
> Further, I thought it was a finding of cognitive science that people's beliefs are often in direct opposition to known facts.  So, by that, have the PC believe the NPC ous lying really doesn't have anything to do with how the skill checks resolved, as those establish what the PC ous able to know, not what the PC believes.



The interpretation of the rolls influences the player who influences the PC. But the roll itself creates soft limits of what can be interpreted in the narrative. Not entirely sure what's controversial about that notion. 



> I'm not following the use you see for the technique.



Admittedly, this portion of the discussion is less about "use" but more of a philosophy of dice resolution and what it conveys in the narrative. My general angle is simply that dice resolution inherently creates limitations of interpretation for the in-narrative fiction, which can extend to the "thoughts" of the PC.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

billd91 said:


> I'm not really seeing how. Being subjected to bluffing and making an insight check involve the ability to read someone or a situation, judge motivations - not really seeing how that determines how someone emotionally feels about a situation.



 Well, back in 3e, Sense Motive was described as a 'hunch' or feeling about whether someone was being truthful.  That could have something to do with it.  It's not "you not changes in his pulse and galvanic skin response: he's clearly being deceptive" it's more like "there's something off, what he's telling you doesn't feel right" or "something about his story makes you feel vaguely uneasy."  Or, at least, can be.



> Knowledge checks determine what the PC can recall at the time, what they might have learned in the past - again, not really seeing how that determines how someone emotionally feels about that information.



 Knowledge checks also make connections and judge relevance.  How many times have you seen a medical drama were the arrogant senior surgeon makes one diagnosis and the idealistic younger one has a second opinion, and the senior, even though he knows everything there is to know about the condition in question, dismisses it because he doesn't have respect for the kid yet.



> I don't really see how affecting how someone feels about something, their emotional response to it, can be justified in the same manner as a roll to determine how much they can observe about the environment around them or what they know.



 It's not that easy to see how either of those things don't involve emotion or judgement or opinion in some way - unless your PC's a Vulcan, of course. 




Ovinomancer said:


> "I have no evidence, but my gut says they're lying" is a _perfectly_ reasonable response to a failed insight cbeck.   Heck, it's a reasonable response to a successful insight check that provided information to show that the NPC _isn't_ lying.



 You're unlikely to have evidence /with/ a successful insight check when the guy is lying, too.  AFAIK, Insight just doesn't much go into how it functions, but Sense Motive did, and it was about getting a hunch about the targets truthfulness.

For just a single successful insight check, "My gut says he's lying" is a pretty reasonable result for a success against the opposed bluff.  
Bring some other investigative attempts in to get 'proof.'



> You cite cognitive science but the PC's mind doesn't operate according to cognitive science, the player's mind does.  So, if the player declares the PC still doesn't believe, there no PC cognitive process in effect for this.  Cognitive science is a pointless aside when discussing fictional minds.



 It's an anachronistic appeal to realism, but I think you'll also find characters having accurate 'feelings' about such things in genre.



> Further, I thought it was a finding of cognitive science that people's beliefs are often in direct opposition to known facts.  So, by that, have the PC believe the NPC ous lying really doesn't have anything to do with how the skill checks resolved, as those establish what the PC ous able to know, not what the PC believes.



 And that's just back to using the player as the resolution system, and the character they're playing doesn't matter.  



> And, finally, I've yet to see an example of how this kind of GM force results in improved play.



 It's not GM force, it's the GM /and player/ respecting the outcome of the mechanical resolution.  GM force absolutely can and has, in innumerable instances, improved play (often improved it from 'disastrous' to merely indifferent, but still improved), especially where the mechanics fail or are absent/inadequate in the first place.



Aldarc said:


> Admittedly, this portion of the discussion is less about "use" but more of a philosophy of dice resolution and what it conveys in the narrative. My general angle is simply that dice resolution inherently creates limitations of interpretation for the in-narrative fiction, which can extend to the "thoughts" of the PC.



 My take on that, which I think is similar, if maybe not as sophisticated, is that mechanical resolution models the character's abilities, while insisting the player decides the PCs thoughts/feeling when those very things will weigh heavily on the result substitute the player's, so you can no longer play a character as different from yourself.


----------



## iserith (Apr 25, 2018)

With regard to Insight in D&D 5e, a Wisdom (Insight) check might resolve uncertainty as to whether a character "can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms." Presumably, the player has described what his or her character wants to do along these lines and the DM decides that the outcome is uncertain and goes to the mechanics to resolve it.

On a successful result, the DM can simply state that the clues the creature is giving indicate consciousness of guilt or that he or she is being untruthful or whatever is appropriate. A failed check might mean the character can determine nothing or the DM can come up with some reasonable result for success at a cost or with a setback.

The rules state who gets to say what the character thinks, how it acts and talks: the player. Telling a player what his or her character thinks, e.g. "You think he's telling the truth..." or "You think he's lying..." or "You believe him..." violates in my view the delineation of roles between player and DM. It's the player's role to determine what the character thinks, not the DM. The DM may only describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurer's actions. That can be done without telling a player how his or her character thinks.

Now some folks will want to obfuscate what "think" means in this context and how it can be warped into all manner of clever (and not-so-clever) ways to try and push the player into having his or her character act accordingly. But, despite how commonly I see DMs both declare what characters think and how they act, I think that is not in the spirit of the game and the player should be left to establish what his or her character thinks and how he or she acts outside of some magical compulsion or the like. Other games may handle this differently. That is how I see it in D&D 5e. It's simple and it works.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Admittedly, this portion of the discussion is less about "use" but more of a philosophy of dice resolution and what it conveys in the narrative. My general angle is simply that dice resolution inherently creates limitations of interpretation for the in-narrative fiction, which can extend to the "thoughts" of the PC.



This is the crux of it, right here; but can be expanded to several connected questions:

- do the dice results create actual limits of interpretation - hard rules - that a player is expected to adhere to in character?  If no, then
- do the dice results create suggested limits of interpretation - guidelines - that a player probably ought to adhere to but doesn't have to?  If no, then
- do the dice results create suggested interpretations without limits that, while possibly informing a player's direction, leave the player free to act as she sees fit?  If no, then
- are the dice necessary at all?  And for all four of these questions there is a fifth:
- are each of the above, when answered, good or bad game design?

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

iserith said:


> With regard to Insight in D&D 5e, a Wisdom (Insight) check might resolve uncertainty as to whether a character "can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms." Presumably, the player has described what his or her character wants to do along these lines and the DM decides that the outcome is uncertain and goes to the mechanics to resolve it.



 The player declared an action, there's uncertainty, it's resolved, and the DM _narrates the results_.  Those results are necessarily about what the PC has seen, _and what conclusions he draws from them._


----------



## iserith (Apr 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The player declared an action, there's uncertainty, it's resolved, and the DM _narrates the results_.  Those results are necessarily about what the PC has seen, _and what conclusions he draws from them._




A reach used to justify telling a player what his or her character thinks in my view, often but not always in hopes of having the character act in a particular way. So, I'll pass on that one.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

iserith said:


> A reach used to justify telling a player what his or her character thinks in my view, often but not always in hopes of having the character act in a particular way. So, I'll pass on that one.



 Telling the player what the 'clues' his character spotted indicate is telling him what conclusion he's drawn from those clues.  If you want to avoid that, you could just describe the clues in question, but, at that point, really, what's the point of the skill?  You're no longer resolving the action based on the ability of the character as modeled by the skill, but by the player's knowledge of what 'clues' the DM thinks give away a lie or affirm truthfulness.  

And that seems like a lot to give up - and go through - to avoid simply saying "you think he's probably lying..." or "he seems truthful to you..."


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The player declared an action, there's uncertainty, it's resolved, and the DM _narrates the results_.  Those results are necessarily about what the PC has seen, _and what conclusions he draws from them._




The process, as I've learnt it, from the 80's on, and taught it:

Player states attempted action
GM either doesn't interrupt, or interrupts to state some uncertainty or alternate resolution.
GM may decide to use an uncertainty based resolution
GM narrates results

play continues

Many a time a player may state a no-roll-needed action of walking down a hall, only to hear, "you stepped on a trigger - make a saving roll vs poison"..


----------



## iserith (Apr 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Telling the player what the 'clues' his character spotted indicate is telling him what conclusion he's drawn from those clues.  If you want to avoid that, you could just describe the clues in question, but, at that point, really, what's the point of the skill?  You're no longer resolving the action based on the ability of the character as modeled by the skill, but by the player's knowledge of what 'clues' the DM thinks give away a lie or affirm truthfulness.
> 
> And that seems like a lot to give up - and go through - to avoid simply saying "you think he's probably lying..." or "he seems truthful to you..."




Again, and as I said in my first post, "Now some folks will want to obfuscate what 'think' means in this context and how it can be warped into all manner of clever (and not-so-clever) ways to try and push the player into having his or her character act accordingly."

If you're comfortable telling your players what their characters think, go for it. I choose not to for the reasons stated.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

iserith said:


> Again, and as I said in my first post, "Now some folks will want to obfuscate what 'think' means in this context and how it can be warped into all manner of clever (and not-so-clever) ways to try and push the player into having his or her character act accordingly."
> 
> If you're comfortable telling your players what their characters think, go for it. I choose not to for the reasons stated.



I guess I missed it somewhere:  how would you phrase answers to an action like "can I tell if he's lying?" (let alone "do I think he's lying?" which I suspect, would earn a "IDK, do you?") or whatever, to both avoid telling the player what the PC thinking, and convey anything like useful information?  I mean, objective:  determine if the NPC is being truthful  method: I pay careful attention to his body language, looking for any clues that might indicate deceit, perhaps.

How'd you narrate the resolution if you thought it was uncertain, and decided to roll..?  


As a bonus:  how would you determine & narrate a failure giving wrong information vs no information?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I guess I missed it somewhere:  how would you phrase answers to an action like "can I tell if he's lying?" (let alone "do I think he's lying?" which I suspect, would earn a "IDK, do you?") or whatever, to both avoid telling the player what the PC thinking, and convey anything like useful information?  I mean, objective:  determine if the NPC is being truthful  method: I pay careful attention to his body language, looking for any clues that might indicate deceit, perhaps.
> 
> How'd you narrate the resolution if you thought it was uncertain, and decided to roll..?
> 
> ...




For a failure, when someone is bluffing/deception is better than the PC is sensing motives, how about "He gives off no indication of insincerity that you can detect." or "His sincerity seems genuine." The same works if the NPC isn't actually lying no matter what the PC rolls for insight/sense motive. It's still up to the player to believe or not believe what the NPC is telling his PC.

For a successful sense motive/insight better than the NPC's bluff/deception - "He's shifty on the topic, possibly lying or hiding something." The only real constraint here on a PC's mental state is that he's no longer capable of believing that the NPC is speaking the honest truth as he knows it. And that's a whole lot less than manipulating someone into going on a quest or taking a lot of control of the PC away from the player.

Ultimately, you just don't tell the PC how he feels about that information. Leave it up to the player to decide how their PC feels about whether or not the NPC seems sincere, hiding something, shifty, exaggerating, or outright lying.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 26, 2018)

billd91 said:


> For a failure, when someone is bluffing/deception is better than the PC is sensing motives, how about "He gives off no indication of insincerity that you can detect." or "His sincerity seems genuine." The same works if the NPC isn't actually lying no matter what the PC rolls for insight/sense motive. It's still up to the player to believe or not believe what the NPC is telling his PC.
> 
> For a successful sense motive/insight better than the NPC's bluff/deception - "He's shifty on the topic, possibly lying or hiding something." The only real constraint here on a PC's mental state is that he's no longer capable of believing that the NPC is speaking the honest truth as he knows it. And that's a whole lot less than manipulating someone into going on a quest or taking a lot of control of the PC away from the player.




So avoid using the words "you think..."   

Reminds me of the 'you messages'/'I messages' thing.  Don't say "you betrayed me!" say "I feel betrayed!" it's _totally different..._ 




> Ultimately, you just don't tell the PC how he feels about that information. Leave it up to the player to decide how their PC feels about whether or not the NPC seems sincere, hiding something, shifty, exaggerating, or outright lying.



 It's not like "you think he's lying" tells the PC how to feel about being lied to...


----------



## iserith (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I guess I missed it somewhere:  how would you phrase answers to an action like "can I tell if he's lying?" (let alone "do I think he's lying?" which I suspect, would earn a "IDK, do you?") or whatever, to both avoid telling the player what the PC thinking, and convey anything like useful information?  I mean, objective:  determine if the NPC is being truthful  method: I pay careful attention to his body language, looking for any clues that might indicate deceit, perhaps.
> 
> How'd you narrate the resolution if you thought it was uncertain, and decided to roll..?
> 
> As a bonus:  how would you determine & narrate a failure giving wrong information vs no information?




I think I'll opt out of giving any specific examples of how I would narrate it since I can only imagine, based on previous experience and on recent threads in this forum debating the meanings of various terms, that some might be inclined to say what I'm saying is me telling the player what the character thinks. I've seen people make arguments that even _describing the environment_ is telling a player what his or her character thinks. It's a tedious discussion for which I don't have the time or patience.

I'll add that I think part of the issue with the way many DMs narrate this outcome comes from the player doing a poor job on being specific with his or her goal and approach, often just assuming what the character is actually doing, because all the player offers is a question (ugh) or a request to make a check. If a player, however, is clear on what his or her character is doing and trying to accomplish and what may or may not constitute a clue that indicates untruthfulness (for example), the DM can simply say whether that clue is noticed. Basically, get a reasonably specific action declaration from the player and the DM doesn't have to tell a player what his or her character thinks.

I would not give out wrong information on a failed check. You notice the clue or you don't just like you notice the secret door or you don't. Though in some situations, success at a cost or with a setback may be a reasonable result.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's not like "you think he's lying" tells the PC how to feel about being lied to...




In my opinion, if you say "you think he's lying" to the player, then it removes all doubt and suspense. I find it more interesting to describe what the npc is doing, and leave the conclusion to the player. For example, I might say: "The npc seems to be keeping an eye on the door". Or: "The npc seems nervous", or: "The npc seems to be exchanging looks with someone else in the tavern".

This can then allow the player to ask further questions, to determine what is going on. Is the npc lying? Or preparing an ambush? Or is he being followed? Or is he giving secret signals to someone else in the tavern?

I don't think social checks should be an outright lie detector.



iserith said:


> I would not give out wrong information on a failed check. You notice the clue or you don't just like you notice the secret door or you don't. Though in some situations, success at a cost or with a setback may be a reasonable result.




Depends on the check in my opinion. If an npc succeeds at their social check, they may seem perfectly sincere, when in fact they are lying.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 26, 2018)

Yeah, I'll sometimes give out wrong (or irrelevant) information on a badly-failed check.  In the check-if-he's-lying example, were I to use such, a really bad failure might narrate as they're sure he's telling the truth when he's in fact lying about point A, but they instead think he's lying about unrelated truthful point B.

Searching for traps gives a more concrete example: a really bad failure might lead to their "finding" a trap where there isn't one, or of a completely different type, while missing the one that's actually there.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Searching for traps gives a more concrete example: a really bad failure might lead to their "finding" a trap where there isn't one, or of a completely different type, while missing the one that's actually there.




When it comes to searching for traps, I would not give out false information. But a result of a failed trap may be:

-You find hints that a trap is nearby, but have no idea where it is exactly.
-You accidentally prime the trap while searching for it.
-You don't find the trap at all.
-You find only part of the trap, but miss a crucial detail that happens to be well hidden.


----------



## iserith (Apr 26, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Depends on the check in my opinion. If an npc succeeds at their social check, they may seem perfectly sincere, when in fact they are lying.




In D&D 5e, I would only make such a check for the NPC as a contest in order to determine a DC for the PC's check. The NPC will already have made an effort to seem sincere despite lying before the player declares an action to try to have the character determine the NPC's truthfulness.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 26, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> In my opinion, if you say "you think he's lying" to the player, then it removes all doubt and suspense.



 Because the PC also thinks he's infallible?



> I find it more interesting to describe what the npc is doing, and leave the conclusion to the player. For example, I might say: "The npc seems to be keeping an eye on the door". Or: "The npc seems nervous", or: "The npc seems to be exchanging looks with someone else in the tavern".



 And that shifts it from the character's insight skill vs the NPC, to the player's metaphorical insight skill vs you...

...which is the bit that I don't like.  I want people to be able to play characters quite different from themselves.



> Depends on the check in my opinion. If an npc succeeds at their social check, they may seem perfectly sincere, when in fact they are lying.



 And someone who's telling the exact truth could seem terribly nervous and keep glancing to the door as he wonders if he has any chance of escaping the psychotic murder hobos asking him questions...





iserith said:


> In D&D 5e, I would only make such a check for the NPC as a contest in order to determine a DC for the PC's check. The NPC will already have made an effort to seem sincere despite lying before the player declares an action to try to have the character determine the NPC's truthfulness.



 Or just set the DC to reflect that the NPC is a good liar, rather than 'risk' the NPC roll very high or low and give a strange DC like 7 or 24.  Deciding there's uncertainty is one thing, 2d20's worth of uncertainty is another... 

... but that's a different, 5e/d20, topic...


----------



## iserith (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Or just set the DC to reflect that the NPC is a good liar, rather than 'risk' the NPC roll very high or low and give a strange DC like 7 or 24.  Deciding there's uncertainty is one thing, 2d20's worth of uncertainty is another...
> 
> ... but that's a different, 5e/d20, topic...




Yes, that would be fine in D&D 5e as well. It depends on whether the DM looks at the situation as being one in which the NPC is trying to prevent the PC from accomplishing a goal. If he or she does see it that way, then it's a contest rather than a flat DC.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I guess I missed it somewhere:  how would you phrase answers to an action like "can I tell if he's lying?" (let alone "do I think he's lying?" which I suspect, would earn a "IDK, do you?") or whatever, to both avoid telling the player what the PC thinking, and convey anything like useful information?  I mean, objective:  determine if the NPC is being truthful  method: I pay careful attention to his body language, looking for any clues that might indicate deceit, perhaps.
> 
> How'd you narrate the resolution if you thought it was uncertain, and decided to roll..?
> 
> ...




Quoting you, Tony, instead of a later post on this discussion so that I can thank you for providing the impetus that gelled my thinking on this.  So, thanks!

ETA: First, and because I failed to make this initially clear in the below, I'm discussing social skills here.  You'll see where I realized this.  Also, this discussion is D&D centric.  (I think Story Now and Narrativist games don't have this issue because each check is made only by players and stakes for both success and failure are established, so a limitation on future actions is entirely permissible in those systems and doesn't violate agency because the player has to stake that outcome.)

Here's my thinking -- we use the phrasing 'you think he's lying' because it's a handy shorthand for imparting the kind of otherwise dense and hard to articulate information necessary to provide the input.  So we skip the actual facts -- the looking left, the perspiration, a tightening of the irises, etc -- because it may not convey the proper information to the player (the player may misunderstand or the GM may not be able to convey in a way the player would understand, etc.) and instead use the shorthand to skip ahead to the point we're trying to make, specifically in this case that the wealth of information your character is receiving and the character's ability to perceive it indicates lying is going on.  In short, the 'you think' is a shortcut to clarity because trying to describe the actual information the character is receiving is long and may be misunderstood in the telling.

The problem we're discussing occurs right after this.  On one side, there's the camp (Camp 1) that believe that this information is just that - informational - and that the player has full authority to declare any actions for her PC that she wants.  The "you think" statement is taken solely in an informative sense, a fact or bit of knowledge that they can use or ignore as they wish.

On the other side, there's the camp  (Camp 2) that thinks this information is limiting on the player's ability to declare what their PC does.  That the player is not free to violate this established fact and instead must or should adhere to it. 

(There's also a third camp, which says that the information should strongly bias the player's declarations, but I'm not sure this really differs from Camp 1 or not, because the end point is that the player could still override that bias, they just should be do so judiciously or rarely.)

On both sides, this really is irrelevant as to who's rolling - the player or the NPC.  However, for Camp 1, NPCs rolling checks against PCs tends to be viewed as irrelevant or unwanted.  This is because the player can still do whatever they want, so the die roll is largely meaningless in regards to player decisions.  Therefore, Camp 1 tends to adopt playstyles where NPCs don't initiate rolls against players but instead use their skills as challenge difficult benchmarks against player declared actions.  Camp 2, however, seeing the information imparted by the rolls as binding, sees NPC initiated rolls as just another method for rolls to bind players and so doesn't draw a distinction between NPC initiated or player initiated rolls.  But, the real core difference here isn't if NPCs checks can bind PCs, but how the results of a check are viewed -- is the result of a check informational or binding?

Clearly, myself and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], and other are in Camp 1 -- checks are informational.  Tony's and others are Camp 2.  One camp or the other aren't better, but this explains the core philosophical issue that divides this discussion (I believe, at least).

So, looking to other areas of the game beside social checks, does this continue to play out?  Well, we'll have to divide checks into two categories: informational checks (which I'm discussing above) and those checks used to accomplish a task (like lockpicking).  As for what constitutes the difference between a task resolution and an informational check, I going with whether or not you'd describe the result as something the PC knows or thinks is informational, if you instead describe a change to something outside of the PC that's task resolution.

Firstly, for task resolution checks, I think both Camps engage the game the same way -- a success means the task is accomplished.  There are other considerations for failed checks that I'm not going to go into in this post (fail forward, degrees of failure, etc.).  But, I think both camps see task resolution checks the same way.  Camp 1 isn't going to treat a success on a lockpicking check or a check to force a door open as informational, for instance.  

For informational checks, though, I can see a few problem areas, one huge one being illusions.  Illusions muck with the information presented to the players, but many tables allow for a PC to act as if something described as present is an illusion, ie they allow the player to declare actions against what their PC observes.  This touches on the informational check Camps in that a check may be made and result in false information being provided due to an illusion.  I still believe there are tables that are strong Camp 2 here and that will require the PC act as if the illusion described is real even if the player has doubts, but I also think there are a lot of Camp 2 on social checks GMs out there that are more Camp 1 in regards to illusions.  At least, I've played at such tables where you had to go along with the social check results but could, at any point, declare an attempt to disbelieve something as an illusion or act as if it were an illusion (this often ended poorly, iirc).  

I'd be interested in hearing from many of the posters in this thread about this, from both sides of the discussion.  I don't think it shows any incoherence to be strong Camp 2 on social skills and weak Camp 2 or even Camp 1 on illusions -- this isn't a trap question, it's a curiosity.  

Aside:  I've been quite, um, vigorous in my defense, err, offense(?) on abridging player agency.  Honestly, I think this was because I didn't have a solid understanding of the real divide in thinking, and had an extra dollop of righteousness over my own conversion (ever meet an ex-smoker who's almost violently anti-smoking?).  I find now that I can see a clear divide in the discussion and it's as simple as adopting the 'you think' as binding versus informational, I'm less, well, adamant about the issue.  Well, less adamant that I have the right opinion, not less adamant about my opinion, at least.  I suppose this is a beating-around-the-bush apology for some of my more vigorous statements from earlier in the thread.


----------



## iserith (Apr 26, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Here's my thinking -- we use the phrasing 'you think he's lying' because it's a handy shorthand for imparting the kind of otherwise dense and hard to articulate information necessary to provide the input.  So we skip the actual facts -- the looking left, the perspiration, a tightening of the irises, etc -- because it may not convey the proper information to the player (the player may misunderstand or the GM may not be able to convey in a way the player would understand, etc.) and instead use the shorthand to skip ahead to the point we're trying to make, specifically in this case that the wealth of information your character is receiving and the character's ability to perceive it indicates lying is going on.  In short, the 'you think' is a shortcut to clarity because trying to describe the actual information the character is receiving is long and may be misunderstood in the telling.
> 
> The problem we're discussing occurs right after this.  On one side, there's the camp (Camp 1) that believe that this information is just that - informational - and that the player has full authority to declare any actions for her PC that she wants.  The "you think" statement is taken solely in an informative sense, a fact or bit of knowledge that they can use or ignore as they wish.




I think this helps explain the divide. I will just add for my part, I avoid saying "You think..." when narrating any outcome, just like I don't describe what a PC does physically. (In fact, I endeavor not to start ANY narration with "You.") That's the player's role in my view. I'm a stickler for proper action declaration and if a player is trying to have his or her character figure out if an NPC is lying, then I want the player to declare the reasonably specific clues he or she is looking for that would cause his or her character to think the NPC is lying. The result of the check, if there is one, will determine whether the character notices those clues. Essentially, the player is saying "My character will think X if he or she notices Y." Then I decide if the character notices Y or the dice do.

In my opinion, a lot of issues in the game come from inadequate offers from the player with regard to describing what they want to do. Fix that and a lot of other issues downstream are sorted out. The player has a right to have agency in the game, but like many rights, that comes with a responsibility: to be reasonably specific when it comes to action declarations.

And, of course, my position is based solely on D&D 5e here. If the game said it was fine for the DM to declare what the PCs think, then I wouldn't have this position.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 26, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Quoting you, Tony, instead of a later post on this discussion so that I can thank you for providing the impetus that gelled my thinking on this.  So, thanks!



 You're welcome, I guess, but you did not actually answer either question, at all.




> Here's my thinking -- we use the phrasing 'you think he's lying' because it's a handy shorthand for imparting the kind of otherwise dense and hard to articulate information necessary to provide the input.  So we skip the actual facts -- the looking left, the perspiration, a tightening of the irises, etc -- because it may not convey the proper information to the player (the player may misunderstand or the GM may not be able to convey in a way the player would understand, etc.) and instead use the shorthand to skip ahead to the point we're trying to make, specifically in this case that the wealth of information your character is receiving and the character's ability to perceive it indicates lying is going on.  In short, the 'you think' is a shortcut to clarity because trying to describe the actual information the character is receiving is long and may be misunderstood in the telling.



 It's necessarily the character _drawing a conclusion_ based on it's ability to spot _and interpret_ cues/clues indicating deception.  Literally what he thinks.  



> The problem we're discussing occurs right after this.  On one side, there's the camp (Camp 1) that believe that this information is just that - informational - and that the player has full authority to declare any actions for her PC that she wants.  The "you think" statement is taken solely in an informative sense, a fact or bit of knowledge that they can use or ignore as they wish.



 Actually, I'm pretty sure there's no other camp.  Afterall you can choose quite a lot of actions when you think someone is lying - including to second guess yourself and decide you must be wrong and he's telling the truth (maybe because the lie is so consistent with the facts you do have, and no alternate theory makes any sense, perhaps because you just /really/ want to accept the lie because the alternative is hard to deal with in some way, be it logistical or emotional).  
Alternately, you could just be prone never to trust anyone, which gets very inconvenient, IMX.



> Tony's and others are Camp 2.



 So, my actual camp divides the issue in an entirely different way:  do you resolve tasks based on the abilities of the character, or those of the player?  

If you're resolving certain tasks based on the abilities of the player, then the character needs no skill or attributes in those areas.  If the player controls what the character thinks/feels, then there's no point having morale checks, charm spells, social skills, reaction rolls, INT, WIS, or CHA.  (It's worth noting, BTW, that when 1e AD&D had morale checks, PCs were exempt from them, and it didn't have much in the way of 'social skills,' so the game has long come down - partially - on the 'player resolution' side of things).  If the player controls /how/ a character searches for a secret door or picks a lock or which wire he cuts to disarm a trap, there's no need for skills in those areas.  Etc...

I'm in the camp that says resolve tasks based on the abilities of the character.  It allows players to play characters very different from themselves along a wider range of dimensions.  Players still portray & make decisions for their character, of course, so in games with formal 'framing' (or GMs, like Iserith, who choose to impose it) I think, that heads off any issues around resolving social tasks using character abilities carrying a risk of undermining agency.  In other systems where that sort of step is left vague, obviously it can cause issues.  
Even in such systems, it's worth the risk to player agency, IMHO, because it gives players freedom to play characters substantively different from themselves in more ways than physical & supernatural abilities.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 26, 2018)

Huh, I guess I was optimistic about people giving the above a chance.
 [MENTION=17343]Tony_V[/MENTION]argas

You first start by stating the check resolution unequivocally what the PC thinks.  

You then say that the PC is free to think something different.  

I can't reconcile the two statements.

Your last bit about whether skills are character based or player based is pretty far of of what I was saying.  I wasn't even considering that divide (sorry, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]), and my entire pay was based on character based skills -- no player skill substitutions involved.  

So, good point that I forgot those that prefer players to do skill resolution in free play, but that doesn't really address what I was talking about with Camp 2.  I'm fact, if there's not a check at all, the very basis for the Camps doesn't exist -- outs all premised on a character's check result providing information to the player.


----------



## iserith (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm in the camp that says resolve tasks based on the abilities of the character.  It allows players to play characters very different from themselves along a wider range of dimensions.  Players still portray & make decisions for their character, of course, so in games with formal 'framing' (or GMs, like Iserith, who choose to impose it) I think, that heads off any issues around resolving social tasks using character abilities carrying a risk of undermining agency.  In other systems where that sort of step is left vague, obviously it can cause issues.
> Even in such systems, it's worth the risk to player agency, IMHO, because it gives players freedom to play characters substantively different from themselves in more ways than physical & supernatural abilities.




Like a true leader, I only scan posts till I see my name and then read the sentences immediately before and after it. Can you clarify what you mean here with regard to what you perceive are my methods?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 26, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Huh, I guess I was optimistic about people giving the above a chance.
> You first start by stating the check resolution unequivocally what the PC thinks.
> You then say that the PC is free to think something different.
> I can't reconcile the two statements.



 Make different decisions, anyway.  Afterall, someone could be telling the truth, but have the wrong information, himself, for instance.  He could be lying, but you don't want to let on that you believe that.  Thinking someone is being truthful is just that, not thinking he (or you) is necessarily infallible.

At least, if the possibility of 'false positives' exist.  If the resolution of a roll results in knowing he's lying or not or "you're not sure."  Then, actually, you're always sure, you can never get a mistaken impression that a liar is being truthful or mistake mere nervousness for lying or whatever.



> Your last bit about whether skills are character based or player based is pretty far of of what I was saying.



 Yes, it is.   That's why I felt compelled to spell it out, because that's the important distinction, in my view.  Not whether the details of a system that does model character abilities rather than resorting to substituting player abilities, might end up abridging player agency in some instances.  

That happens a lot in these discussions "risk I'm willing to take" turns into "something I demand all the time."  

That's why we have a battlemaster in 5e, calls for a fighter that could actually do stuff, even if it meant complexity, became calls for a 'complex fighter' for complexity's sake.  



iserith said:


> Can you clarify what you mean here with regard to what you perceive are my methods?



 I'm blanking on the words you usually use, but objective and method?  Players need to tell you what they're trying to accomplish, and how.  That's a form of 'framing,' I think, and avoids some pitfalls.


----------



## iserith (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm blanking on one of the words you usually use, but objective(?) and method.  Players need to tell you what they're trying to accomplish, and how.  That's a form of 'framing,' I think, and avoids some pitfalls.




Ah, right. Goal and approach.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 26, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Huh, I guess I was optimistic about people giving the above a chance.
> 
> You first start by stating the check resolution unequivocally what the PC thinks.
> 
> ...



Maybe the statements are using the word "think" where something else would be better?  As in:

You first start by stating the check resolution unequivocally what the PC *believes to be true*.

You then say that the PC is free to *act as if it is not true and do* something different.

Howzat?



> Your last bit about whether skills are character based or player based is pretty far of of what I was saying.  I wasn't even considering that divide (sorry, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]), and my entire pay was based on character based skills -- no player skill substitutions involved.
> 
> So, good point that I forgot those that prefer players to do skill resolution in free play, but that doesn't really address what I was talking about with Camp 2.  I'm fact, if there's not a check at all, the very basis for the Camps doesn't exist -- outs all premised on a character's check result providing information to the player.



Your point about illusions caught my interest.

In my game, if a PC (or player) thinks there's something fishy about my description of a scene they are always free to state "I disbelieve" - a full-round action during which they attempt to see though an illusion.  I roll in secret, and on success the illusion becomes apparent to that PC...who can then give a significant bonus to any other PCs attempting the same disbelief.  This is pretty much straight out of the 1e rules and it's never been a problem.

Without a successful disbelief, however, the illusion is "real" to the PCs until and unless they interact with it in such a way as to break it (e.g. someone steps on to the illusory floor over the shaft and falls through).

I have a hard time thinking of social stuff in the same light.  Illusions, for one thing, are pretty much binary - in the end you either believe them or you don't - while nearly anything social is going to be much more of a series of sliding scales and never-the-same-twice variables.

Lan-"Illusionist has always been one of my favourite classes to play"-efan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 26, 2018)

iserith said:


> Ah, right. Goal and approach.



Yes, that.    My faulty memory notwithstanding, it's good, succinct, guide, that seems more intuitive than the Game Theorist 'setting the stakes' or 'preserving agency.'

I've been meaning to ask:  did you pull that from somewhere or was it inspired by anything in particular?


----------



## iserith (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, that.    My faulty memory notwithstanding, it's good, succinct, guide.
> 
> I've been meaning to ask:  did you pull that from somewhere or was it inspired by anything in particular?




It's likely distilled from a number of things in the D&D 5e Basic Rules, but it's key to "descriptive roleplaying" on page 66. "Drawing on your mental image of your character, you tell everyone what your character does and how he or she does it." The "what" is the goal. The "how" is the approach. "Active roleplaying" gives the same information, but in a different way and what you can't act out you have to describe.

The specific terms "goal and approach" probably came about as a shorthand in Twitter discussions between myself, [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], and [MENTION=6801813]Valmarius[/MENTION]. I know it wasn't something I came up with on my own. And others have probably arrived at the same terms from some other direction.


----------



## Bawylie (Apr 26, 2018)

iserith said:


> It's likely distilled from a number of things in the D&D 5e Basic Rules, but it's key to "descriptive roleplaying" on page 66. "Drawing on your mental image of your character, you tell everyone what your character does and how he or she does it." The "what" is the goal. The "how" is the approach. "Active roleplaying" gives the same information, but in a different way and what you can't act out you have to describe.
> 
> The specific terms "goal and approach" probably came about as a shorthand in Twitter discussions between myself, [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], and [MENTION=6801813]Valmarius[/MENTION]. I know it wasn't something I came up with on my own. And others have probably arrived at the same terms from some other direction.




You’re DMing for a group and a player starts asking some questions that seem out of the blue and barely relevant to the matter at hand. “Is the stone rough hewn or worked? How high is the ceiling? What’s it made of? Can I see the enemies behind cover? Can I roll perception here?” And after like 10 minutes of this (while the other players yawn and wait for their combat turns) you finally lose it and shout, “Jaysus H Crepes, just what the **** do you want to do here?”

And that’s how you cut to the chase and realize the only relevant info you need is the player’s goal. So on each player’s turn you ask them to state a goal so you can cut 10 minutes of questions. 

Then those goals start getting weirdly detailed. Multiple steps. And again the questions. Oftentimes trying to find out if the goal is at all possible or valid. Another 10 minutes pass and you know you’re about to invoke your pastry savior. You start to skip the player’s descriptions because now that you’ve got the goal, you can just say what they do, right? Player says they want to search for traps (nice goal!). So you start your narration “As you move your hands across the door and feel for...”

“I wouldn’t do that,” they interrupt. An argument starts. They don’t want to set off the trap they suspect is there by touching it. But they explicitly said they were searching. The argument takes 15 minutes until you throw up your hands and ask “Fine then, how do you search for hidden traps without touching the ******** door?” And that’s when you realize you’re gonna start asking for an approach - some brief description of how they plan to go about accomplishing their goal. 

Then it dawns on you - you’ve been adjudicating backwards. You’ve been setting DCs for things and asking for rolls and the players have been rolling dice but they’re basically random number generators and not necessarily making decisions so much as going through a series of time consuming motions. So you decide you’re gonna wait and set DCs based on the goal and the approach and not on the obstacles themselves. 

You get about half the questions you used to get. Then a tenth. You spend more time playing and way less time jibbering about random details. The players are making decisions. They talk at least half the time now. It’s not a one man show anymore. They’re terrified. They’re tense. They’re ecstatic when things go right. 

It’s streamlined. It’s less frustrating and more fun. Your rules lawyer has a lot less to argue about. The players stop asking to make rolls and start thinking of ways to take actions that avoid the dice as much as possible. You don’t fudge rolls anymore because the players are making decisions with full awareness of the consequences of their actions. They get smarter. You add more monsters and more obstacles. Your totm phases are lightning quick and you have time for huge set piece encounters with elaborate maps and terrain. The time you spent arguing and answering questions can be used for anything. Mostly play. Often setting up a new map. 

Goal and approach. I want to dm better games by enabling the players to make meaningful decisions with real consequences. I got a 17.


----------



## iserith (Apr 27, 2018)

...

And that's why I collaborate with [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] on just about everything I do.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2018)

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] - I'm sorry, but, I'm not sure I get it.  Although, props for entertainment value.  How can the player state goals without asking the questions though?  "I want to find out if there is a trap on the door" is a goal.  So, stated, roll and narrate the result.  That's pretty much standard method of play isn't it?

I'm not seeing your point, I'm sorry.


----------



## iserith (Apr 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] - I'm sorry, but, I'm not sure I get it.




It's his answer to Tony's question as to where, in part, the "player states a goal and approach" thing comes from.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 27, 2018)

As usual, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] dispense words of wisdom.

On a side note, I especially hate "you think he's lying".  Humans are ok at assessing general trustworthiness in strangers but terrible at detecting specific lies, and untold damage has been wrought by people...especially police...who believe they are good at the latter and therefore have too much confidence in their guesses.  

If you are really going to tell a player what his/her character thinks, then in this case you may as well flip a coin.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2018)

iserith said:


> It's his answer to Tony's question as to where, in part, the "player states a goal and approach" thing comes from.




No, I get where it came from, I just don't really understand the answer.  How is this different from pretty bog standard play?  Player says, "I want to do X", DM assesses difficulty and player rolls success or failure and the DM narrates.  What am I missing?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> As usual, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] dispense words of wisdom.
> 
> On a side note, I especially hate "you think he's lying".  Humans are ok at assessing general trustworthiness in strangers but terrible at detecting specific lies, and untold damage has been wrought by people...especially police...who believe they are good at the latter and therefore have too much confidence in their guesses.
> 
> If you are really going to tell a player what his/her character thinks, then in this case you may as well flip a coin.




But, you're also kinda shooting your own point in the foot.  People think they can detect specific lies all the time.  And are often confident in their guesses.  So, saying, "You think he's lying" is perfectly in keeping with normal behavior.  What's the issue here?  It's quite believable, it's within the bounds of the rules, and it avoids needless verbiage that pretty much amounts to the same thing.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, you're also kinda shooting your own point in the foot.  People think they can detect specific lies all the time.  And are often confident in their guesses.  So, saying, "You think he's lying" is perfectly in keeping with normal behavior.  What's the issue here?  It's quite believable, it's within the bounds of the rules, and it avoids needless verbiage that pretty much amounts to the same thing.




I suppose it might seem that way if you don't understand the arguments.  Or consciously misconstrue them.

Note the "if you are really going to tell the player what his/her character thinks" part.  I'm still not condoning it.

In the case of lying, a character with high Insight is no more likely to guess correctly than a character with low Insight.  (That is, apart from the game defining it that way.  Which I think is dumb.)   By saying "you may as well flip a coin" I'm disparaging the whole enterprise of lie-detection-as-skill.  

I'm also not saying I have a good replacement system. Relatively effective "lie detection" requires things like catching a liar in a contradiction (which even then isn't proof) or correctly evaluating motives/incentives to lie. 

But, regardless of how you do it, whether you want to end up with a binary "believes/does not believe" or whether you think it should be a more nuanced spectrum of certainty, ultimately what the player thinks should be what the character thinks.

EDIT: I'll mitigate the above slightly: if Insight is supposed to represent or abstract the kinds of questioning that leads to contradictions, or unearths motives, then I could see it being useful.  (Although it should be called Interrogation not Insight in that case.  "Insight" suggests to me just passive observation, not active sleuthing.)  But it...and all "detection" skills...should still result in non-binary confidence.  

Ideally players should be thinking things like, "Ok, I rolled really well, and the DM said I wasn't able to catch him in a contradiction, so he's probably telling the truth...but he still might not be."  It's even ok if the player can put a probability on that.  "...there's still a 7% chance he's lying."

Because when people IRL say "I think he's lying" they know there's a chance they might be wrong.


----------



## iserith (Apr 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> No, I get where it came from, I just don't really understand the answer.  How is this different from pretty bog standard play?  Player says, "I want to do X", DM assesses difficulty and player rolls success or failure and the DM narrates.  What am I missing?




"I want to do X..." or "I want to find out if there is a trap on the door..." are both statements of goals. Bawylie and I would find them to be incomplete action declarations because they lack an approach and can lead to the DM to assuming or establishing what the character does, thinks, or says - all infringement of agency - which may result in the sorts of problems he mentions. By requiring goal _and_ approach, the player has full control over what his or her character is actually doing while pursuing the goal and those potential problems are neatly sidestepped, plus there can be other benefits as he mentions.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 27, 2018)

iserith said:


> "I want to do X..." or "I want to find out if there is a trap on the door..." are both statements of goals. Bawylie and I would find them to be incomplete action declarations because they lack an approach and can lead to the DM to assuming or establishing what the character does, thinks, or says - all infringement of agency - which may result in the sorts of problems he mentions. By requiring goal _and_ approach, the player has full control over what his or her character is actually doing while pursuing the goal and those potential problems are neatly sidestepped, plus there can be other benefits as he mentions.




I suspect some, out of an unwillingness to admit that somebody else could say something intelligent...or possibly because doing so might lend credibility to _something else_ that other person once said...will either:
a) Say this is obvious and is the way the game has been played forever
b) Will contrive some edge-case scenario to try to illustrate why this won't work.

Or both.

My reaction to "goal and approach" is that, yes, I do try to play that way.  And yet I still find it useful to formalize it (sort of like "describe, then say 'what do you do?'") as a way of reinforcing the behavior.


----------



## iserith (Apr 27, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I suspect some, out of an unwillingness to admit that somebody else could say something intelligent...or possibly because doing so might lend credibility to _something else_ that other person once said...will either:
> a) Say this is obvious and is the way the game has been played forever
> b) Will contrive some edge-case scenario to try to illustrate why this won't work.
> 
> Or both.




Sure, I've seen all those arguments before. I already know how to defeat them. Bring it on. 



Elfcrusher said:


> My reaction to "goal and approach" is that, yes, I do try to play that way.  And yet I still find it useful to formalize it (sort of like "describe, then say 'what do you do?'") as a way of reinforcing the behavior.




I try to explain it to players as both a right and a responsibility. The players have a right to agency in the game, the right to play their character without the DM playing it for them. But that comes with a responsibility to be explicit about what they want to do and how they set about doing it.

I also put it in terms of good use of time. If they aren't explicit enough, I have to stop the game and ask them to clarify or add to what they are saying so I don't have to assume what they're doing. If they do their part up front, I don't have to assume (and possibly end up assuming wrong which wastes more time) or ask questions to get at their goal or approach.

I further tell them that I already control two-thirds of the conversation of the game (Steps 1 and 3). I don't want to infringe upon the one-third that they have. Players understand this in my experience and step up, which means fewer questions, fewer disputes, more meaningful decisions, more action, more progress per session.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> On a side note, I especially hate "you think he's lying".  Humans are ok at assessing general trustworthiness in strangers but terrible at detecting specific lies, and untold damage has been wrought by people...especially police...who believe they are good at the latter and therefore have too much confidence in their guesses.



OK.  I suppose, in that case, "you think he's lying" is better than "he's clearly lying, and the truth is ________," but I still think that offering the conclusion based on the character's ability is more functional than inventing obscure clues for the player on a success, and counting on his ability to draw the conclusion you meant to telegraph in those clues.



> If you are really going to tell a player what his/her character thinks, then in this case you may as well flip a coin.



So, set the DC so they need a natural 11 to succeed, then?



Hussar said:


> No, I get where it came from, I just don't really understand the answer.  How is this different from pretty bog standard play?  Player says, "I want to do X", DM assesses difficulty and player rolls success or failure and the DM narrates.  What am I missing?



 It struck me as more formalized.

5e D&D says "player declares action, DM determines success/failure/calls for a roll, DM narrates results."  It's adding parameters to 'declares action' -  you don't just declare an action, you state a goal and describe how you intend the character to accomplish it.  That puts it closer to setting stakes - because the goal is what you're after, and the approach implies risks the character is willing to take to accomplish it.

In the wild, action declarations can be just a goal - "I check for traps"  "I search for a hidden compartment" - or just an approach  - "I examine the idol closely, without touching it" "I tap the sides & bottom of the chest, compare the interior dimensions to the exterior, look for atypical signs of wear..." - when the player knows he needs to fill in both, the DM has a better idea what he's working with.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Make different decisions, anyway.  Afterall, someone could be telling the truth, but have the wrong information, himself, for instance.  He could be lying, but you don't want to let on that you believe that.  Thinking someone is being truthful is just that, not thinking he (or you) is necessarily infallible.
> 
> At least, if the possibility of 'false positives' exist.  If the resolution of a roll results in knowing he's lying or not or "you're not sure."  Then, actually, you're always sure, you can never get a mistaken impression that a liar is being truthful or mistake mere nervousness for lying or whatever.
> 
> ...




I understand what you're saying, I think, I just can't follow how we're here talking about what I said.  I just can't follow how you got to why Battlemasters exist in 5e from the Camps I presented.  I mean, clearly, you have thoughts on the matter, but maybe it's a different topic?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I understand what you're saying, I think, I just can't follow how we're here talking about what I said.  I just can't follow how you got to why Battlemasters exist in 5e from the Camps I presented.  I mean, clearly, you have thoughts on the matter, but maybe it's a different topic?



 Yeah, I just don't accept the camp you chose to put me in, it's nothing to do with the aspect of the issue that concerns me.

The Battlemaster was just an example of (designers, in that case) listening to only part of what's being asked for - the "what I'd be willing to put up with (complexity) to get what I want" and almost pointedly, NOT the "what I actually want" (a versatile, fighter that models genre archetypes & balances with casters at any day length) part, so we got the Battlemaster:  a complex for the sake of complexity fighter that delivers none of that.  

I don't want to tell players what their character thinks or does, but I'd be willing to put up with having to do that, some of the time, to avoid having resolutions based on the players' abilities, instead of the characters' abilities.  So, I'm being treated as the 'opposing camp' who wants to dictate character thoughts and actions for it's own sake.


----------



## iserith (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, I just don't accept the camp you chose to put me in, it's nothing to do with the aspect of the issue that concerns me.
> 
> The Battlemaster was just an example of (designers, in that case) listening to only part of what's being asked for - the "what I'd be willing to put up with (complexity) to get what I want" and almost pointedly, NOT the "what I actually want" (a versatile, fighter that models genre archetypes & balances with casters at any day length) part, so we got the Battlemaster:  a complex for the sake of complexity fighter that delivers none of that.
> 
> I don't want to tell players what their character thinks or does, but I'd be willing to put up with having to do that, some of the time, to avoid having resolutions based on the players' abilities, instead of the characters' abilities.  So, I'm being treated as the 'opposing camp' who wants to dictate character thoughts and actions for it's own sake.




It could also be said that the supposed camp that wants "resolutions based on the players' abilities" don't necessarily want that. What we want is players to be explicit enough with their action declarations that the DM doesn't have to infringe upon their agency by assuming or establishing what the character thinks, says, or does. The resolution is still based, in part, on the character's abilities as the mechanics may demand. Even so, some player skill is _always_ involved. That is unavoidable.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, I just don't accept the camp you chose to put me in, it's nothing to do with the aspect of the issue that concerns me.
> 
> The Battlemaster was just an example of (designers, in that case) listening to only part of what's being asked for - the "what I'd be willing to put up with (complexity) to get what I want" and almost pointedly, NOT the "what I actually want" (a versatile, fighter that models genre archetypes & balances with casters at any day length) part, so we got the Battlemaster:  a complex for the sake of complexity fighter that delivers none of that.
> 
> I don't want to tell players what their character thinks or does, but I'd be willing to put up with having to do that, some of the time, to avoid having resolutions based on the players' abilities, instead of the characters' abilities.  So, I'm being treated as the 'opposing camp' who wants to dictate character thoughts and actions for it's own sake.



I haven't seen anyone that says you shouldn't tell players what their characters think make that claim except [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], and he just flat out doesn't like social skills at all due to being in the camp that social skills belong in role-playing, not mechanics.  I don't think he even reached the "do mechanics inform thinking" divide.

So, it would be fair to say that you don't think that mechanics should dictate PC thinking, but would rather than than the elimination of all mechanical informational checks?  If so, cool, I grok, but, man, did you ever bury that lede!


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 27, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> The problem we're discussing occurs right after this.  On one side, there's the camp (Camp 1) that believe that this information is just that - informational - and that the player has full authority to declare any actions for her PC that she wants.  The "you think" statement is taken solely in an informative sense, a fact or bit of knowledge that they can use or ignore as they wish.
> 
> On the other side, there's the camp  (Camp 2) that thinks this information is limiting on the player's ability to declare what their PC does.  That the player is not free to violate this established fact and instead must or should adhere to it.
> 
> (There's also a third camp, which says that the information should strongly bias the player's declarations, but I'm not sure this really differs from Camp 1 or not, because the end point is that the player could still override that bias, they just should be do so judiciously or rarely.)



The third camp is "it limits your unpenalized actions" - key being "unpenalized"

Group 1 has no penalty.
Group 2 simply disallows
Group 3 allows violation at penalty.

I consider myself in group 3.

Why I take this stance

Good RP requires accepting that there are limits imposed by the situation. 
The character is NOT the player, and the character is a piece in a game; that game includes Roleplaying as a fundamental concept and mode of play.
The inclusion of mental stats means the mental abilities of the character are part of the game, not just the RP.
Spells that affect minds are not limited to affecting NPC's
Morale rules are not exclusive to NPCs, either.
I tend toward the simulationist mode of thought


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] - I'm sorry, but, I'm not sure I get it.  Although, props for entertainment value.  How can the player state goals without asking the questions though?  "I want to find out if there is a trap on the door" is a goal.  So, stated, roll and narrate the result.  That's pretty much standard method of play isn't it?
> 
> I'm not seeing your point, I'm sorry.




Bawlie is basically using the Burning Wheel approach.
State your desired outcome
State the method
Option: Roll dice here
Do the in-character narration/dialogue to match.
Alternate: Roll dice here, possibly with an extra for good narration

Player: I'm going to use Blather to occupy the guard so that Fred's character can slip in. "Hey, Joachim, Long time, no see! Hows life? I'm in town for a couple days, and would love to have dinner with you and the wife. Boy how strong that tea was, I'm going a mile a minute..."
GM: if you fail, he spots the entry and connects you to it, and we go to Fight. Ob 3
Dice clatter; success.
Player: As I continue on, Fred slips by.

It's clear from the Goal what the attempt is all about. The Method is how you're doing it in a mechanics sense; the narration is how you're doing it in a story sense.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 27, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> The third camp is "it limits your unpenalized actions" - key being "unpenalized"
> 
> Group 1 has no penalty.
> Group 2 simply disallows
> ...



All good.  My only questions then become what does the 'penalty' consist of, and how (and by who) is it applied?

Morale rules are a sticky one - even back in 1e they divided them between being hard-and-fast for NPCs/henches/monsters but not applying to PCs at all.  Me, when I've used them at all (infrequent) I've always just used them as a rough guideline rather than anything hard and fast, and mostly let the at-the-time situation be a bigger aspect of determining the NPCs' reactions*.

* - the only time this gets messy is when a printed module says an NPC will do X (without which the plot risks running aground) but the situation strongly suggests their doing Y instead - I'll sometimes resolve this by secretly giving the NPC a quick roll-under Int or Wis check; on failure it does less-optimal X and on success it does Y and the plot be damned. 

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, it would be fair to say that you don't think that mechanics should dictate PC thinking, but would rather that than the elimination of all mechanical informational checks?  If so, cool, I grok, but, man, did you ever bury that lede!



Approximately, yeah, and, yes, I tend to drift with threads rather than drive them.  

Many times 'what the PC thinks' or 'what the PC feels' is going to be a function of the PC's abilities, and have a significant, related game impact, so needs to be modeled on those abilities, not just arbitrarily decided by the Player, whether by good-conscious character-driven RP or CaW drive to win regardless, FWIW.  So, not that mechanics shouldn't (even ideally) ever end up dictating a PC thought/feeling/action, but that it should be minimized, and that the modeling should be good enough that it won't often be at odds with the concept.  

So if you want to play an amazingly brave heroic PC, you should be able to design the character such that he'll rarely or never fail a morale check or save vs fear or be intimidated or whatever.  You shouldn't /need/ to fall back on the claim that it's 'wrong' for your character to be afraid, in order to protect that concept from the mechanics.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

iserith said:


> It could also be said that the supposed camp that wants "resolutions based on the players' abilities" don't necessarily want that.



 Nod, to extend it, they're just willing to accept that characters aren't being modeled, in support of whatever agenda is actually important to them.



> What we want is players to be explicit enough with their action declarations that the DM doesn't have to infringe upon their agency by assuming or establishing what the character thinks, says, or does.



I think that's an entirely compatible agenda.  If you know going into a task that there's a risk of coming out of it in a given state - if even your preternaturally brave PC takes the 'face your greatest fears' test, he might come out of it screaming - your agency has been preserved.


> The resolution is still based, in part, on the character's abilities as the mechanics may demand. Even so, some player skill is _always_ involved. That is unavoidable.



'Player skill" has been left a little fraught by the old-school sense of the phrase, but yeah, player skill is inevitably part of it, it should just be skill at playing the game  - system mastery, gaming the DM, abstract resource management, tactical decision making on the meta-game side, etc - it shouldn't be the player's skill at being convincing, for instance, overriding the character's skill or lack thereof in the same area.


----------



## iserith (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> gaming the DM




Unnecessary trolling in an otherwise reasonable post.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Many times 'what the PC thinks' or 'what the PC feels' is going to be a function of the PC's abilities, and have a significant, related game impact, so needs to be modeled on those abilities, not just arbitrarily decided by the PC, whether by good-conscious character-drive RP or CaW drive to win regardless, FWIW.  So, not that mechanics shouldn't (even ideally) ever end up dictating a PC thought/feeling/action, but that it should be minimized, and that the modeling should be good enough that it won't often be at odds with the concept.
> 
> So if you want to play an amazingly brave heroic PC, you should be able to design the character such that he'll rarely or never fail a morale check or save vs fear or be intimidated or whatever.  You shouldn't /need/ to fall back on the claim that it's 'wrong' for your character to be afraid, in order to protect that concept from the mechanics.



True.  But if you've done your character design halfway well you'll not have to worry about fear effects most of the time...and as for the times you do - well, nobody's perfect. 

And there's sometimes going to be character concepts that run aground either on the mechanics, or on the whims of dice, or on the game itself.  My concept might be that I'm the toughest hombre around in these parts, but if I then turn around and roll 13 for my Con score and below average for my hit points my concept just got kicked in the teeth, and I have to go to plan B.

Sometimes, even though I've designed my character to be the most persuasive insightful character possible, I'm still going to blow the insight or fail the persuasion; just not as often as the other guy.  No big deal.

Another example might be where the DM has said the game will be largely about fighting orcs, then giants, then off-world aberrations but the concept I have in mind revolves around dealing with undead.

Lan-"if this makes no sense I'll try to explain better later"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Apr 28, 2018)

Thanks for the clarifications folks.  I got it.  Not a bad way to go at all.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 28, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Thanks for the clarifications folks.  I got it.  Not a bad way to go at all.




Not without its flaws, tho - I've a player who refuses to narrate a thing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> True.  But if you've done your character design halfway well you'll not have to worry about fear effects most of the time...



Yeah, I chose that example for a reason, because its an obvious heroic archetype that D&D, and, indeed, most systems, can't seem to allow.



> concept might be that I'm the toughest hombre around in these parts, but if I then turn around and roll 13 for my Con score and below average for my hit points my concept just got kicked in the teeth, and I have to go to plan B.Another example might be where the DM has said the game will be largely about fighting orcs, then giants, then off-world aberrations but the concept I have in mind revolves around dealing with undead.



 Concepts need to be appropriate to the campaign, restrictions beyond that are just failures of the system.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 28, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> OK.  I suppose, in that case, "you think he's lying" is better than "he's clearly lying, and the truth is ________," but I still think that offering the conclusion based on the character's ability is more functional than inventing obscure clues for the player on a success, and counting on his ability to draw the conclusion you meant to telegraph in those clues.




I agree with that.  It *is* more functional, but that doesn't mean it's a good solution.  I don't have a better solution to offer (not for lack of trying).  Detection is just a really hard problem in RPGs because it's hard to model false positives and false negatives on a useful probability spectrum.

Let me give you an example of something I came up with for a different but related problem: underground exploration.  I wanted an abstract system that models navigating twists and turns and forks and such (this was for The One Ring) without having to draw maps ahead of time.  I wanted character skill to factor in, not blind luck.  So here's what I came up with:
1. As a result of a random table of obstacles you come to an N-way intersection (typically 2, 3, or 4 choices).  Your odds of guessing correctly are 1/N.
3. Players can use various skills to look for clues (Riddle, Survival, Search, Explore, etc.)
4. For each success you get +1 on the final roll, but the odds never become 100%.  Optionally, the DM can also pick from a list of canned clues to add flavor: "You notice a foul odor wafting from the left path."  "It looks like there are recent tracks going right, etc."  But doing so doesn't change the mechanics.
5. On (the equivalent of) a critical success, you conclusively eliminate a path, adjusting the odds appropriately.  (So the only time you know the right way with certainty is if you can eliminate all options but one.)
6. After the players have used their skills, the players choose which path they think is best.  Then the DM secretly rolls, using the adjusted odds plus the bonus to see if they were right.  (Notice that he doesn't roll first and then say, "You think it's Option C.")  But he doesn't tell them the result.  However, based on their successes they will have a good chance of at least estimating how likely they are to be right.  
7. As they continue exploring, if they chose the wrong path the table the DM rolls against to determine future obstacles becomes more challenging.  So a chain of difficult obstacles, or possibly an outright dead-end, might be a hint for the players that they are off-route and should backtrack.  

But even this, as complicated as it is, doesn't fully succeed.  For example, there's no worsening of odds based on a critical failure.  It would only work if the players mistakenly thought they were getting successes, which means the DM would have to secretly roll for the players, and I've already got one too many secret rolls in this system.  (I really don't like secret rolls.)

I also failed to design it in such a way that some characters would conclude one thing, and others would conclude something else.  I would have loved to have come up with a system that would lead to players bickering about who is right, because that's probably what their characters would be doing as their supply of torches dwindled.  Immersion!

But what I do like about this system is that it doesn't require the DM telling the players what they think, or the players matching their own wits against the DM's ability to deceive them.  It's the characters against the dungeon, and the DM is just the neutral arbiter.  

(As an aside, while I don't think you actually would be a proponent of this, your previous arguments taken to an extreme would suggest that if the players began to suspect that they had taken the wrong route they would have to make ability checks to determine if their characters also suspected the same thing.)



> So, set the DC so they need a natural 11 to succeed, then?



Again, I'm not advocating actually flipping a coin and telling the player what he thinks.  I'm saying the approach of rolling dice to determine if a player can detect a lie is so terrible to start with that you may as well streamline it by making it straight 50/50.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Bawlie is basically using the Burning Wheel approach.
> State your desired outcome
> State the method



I was think ing much the same thing.

What counts as sufficient statement of the method is always an open question. For example, if the goal is "kill the orc" is it a sufficient statement of method to say "I enter melee with my sword?" Or does the player need to specify some particular swordfighting technique?

The similar issue arises with traps.

In the swordfighting case, if the player fails the check (so that the PC misses, gets skewered by the orc, etc) is the GM allowed to narrate "As you try to parry, you suddenly realise the orc has deftly feinted past your defence"? And, if so, is the player allowed to respond with a more intricate description of his/her PC's fighting style which explains how s/he would never fall for that feint?

In the trapfinding case, if the check is failed is the GM allowed to narrate "As you feel for tripwires, you accidently trigger a pressure plate?" If not, how is the GM meant to narrate failure? And is a player of a trapfinder meant to be able to narrate detailed trap-finding techniques? Does this feed back into swordfighting? (And what about magical skills, where _no one_ can know what the relevant techniques might be?)

I have used the Burning Wheel approach for a long time (in Rolemaster, 4e, BW, Classic Traveller, Cortex+ Heroic). But I still find it needs some sort of give-and-take between player and GM in the narration of failure, which very often (obviously not always) may involve the PC doing something that the player would prefer the PC had not done.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 28, 2018)

"Good RP requires accepting that there are limits imposed by the situation.The character is NOT the player, and the character is a piece in a game; that game includes Roleplaying as a fundamental concept and mode of play.The inclusion of mental stats means the mental abilities of the character are part of the game, not just the RP.Spells that affect minds are not limited to affecting NPC'sMorale rules are not exclusive to NPCs, either.I tend toward the simulationist mode of thought..."

To me the issue is **who** decides which actions fall into "good RP" for a situation and who decides which actions don't.

This is where the attempt to blur conclusion and choice or assessment and decision gets to be flawed imo. (The every observation is what you think neurobabble.)

Situation: Party is at the docks. Boat is damaged. Need to get to island. 

My character has relevant skills so checks boat over. GM tells me "boat if far from,perfect, so not certainty but you figure you'll make it across." 

Now seems that some would have that lead to go across or penalty for not roleplaying that assessment, that conclusion, that "what character thinks in this situation."

But to me, the guy responsible for running the character i created, it may not be so clear. 

If my pc was not in favor of the mission, i could "roleplay"  that "risks are too high. After all we could all die in this boat. No idea whats out there stirred up in the water after that storm and this boat, she has seen better days." 

Just the same way a duke could make a good case for us dropping things and running off to save his relative but my character could not be convinced its more important than my own needs of the moment or worth it if my character want a different outcome.

At the point that "good roleplaying" is determined by GM and die rolls and penalties are used to enforce it, dont see why i am there beyong giving the gm his audience and time to rest thier voice.

Insight check vs lying... Give me the assessment but let me be the decider for what reprrsents *good RP* of my character.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> if you want to play an amazingly brave heroic PC, you should be able to design the character such that he'll rarely or never fail a morale check or save vs fear or be intimidated or whatever.  You shouldn't /need/ to fall back on the claim that it's 'wrong' for your character to be afraid, in order to protect that concept from the mechanics.



I agree with this, and think I posted something along these lines way upthread.

But it assumes a mechanically mediated approach to play which is not uncontroversial! (As this thread shows.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 28, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I agree with this, and think I posted something along these lines way upthread.
> 
> But it assumes a mechanically mediated approach to play which is not uncontroversial! (As this thread shows.)




It also assumes a mechanically mediated approach to play that doesn't suck out loud when it comes to modeling that kind of archetype, which is possibly one of the least-warranted assumptions in the history of the hobby.


----------



## Darth Solo (Apr 28, 2018)

"Player Agency", or, the players ability to control their own character, is proto-mythic. It influences the game but only as much as the player touches the GM's game.

There's how the dice affect the game, then there's how the players' actual RP affects the game. Rpgs have a few levels. To say to game stops or begins at a level could be inaccurate.

If you decide to play a game where a player (the GM) can negate or even control your decisions as a player and that irks you, do not play D&D RAW. Your group should agree the GM is not the final authority. 

You can do that. 

But the idea that the entire hobby might should change because you don't like Charm is silly. Change your table, not mine. I'm going to play D&D as intended, which is, as my group prefers.

I don't begrudge Storygamers how they want to play, even though D&D was never designed for them. They can make it their own. More power. 

Just don't try to tell me how my group plays is wrong. Ever.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 28, 2018)

Darth Solo said:


> "Player Agency", or, the players ability to control their own character, is proto-mythic. It influences the game but only as much as the player touches the GM's game.
> 
> There's how the dice affect the game, then there's how the players' actual RP affects the game. Rpgs have a few levels. To say to game stops or begins at a level could be inaccurate.
> 
> ...




Who the heck are you responding to?  Did somebody say that Charm spells used against PCs are badwrongfun?  (If so I missed it.)


----------



## Darth Solo (Apr 28, 2018)

Yeah. 

The OP suggests that certain rpgs infringe on the player's ability to control their character. Re-read the OP. I did a few times and I've seen this argument before.

So. I posted here.


----------



## Bawylie (Apr 28, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I was think ing much the same thing.
> 
> What counts as sufficient statement of the method is always an open question. For example, if the goal is "kill the orc" is it a sufficient statement of method to say "I enter melee with my sword?" Or does the player need to specify some particular swordfighting technique?
> 
> ...




I’ve never played burning wheel. 

For the sword fighting example: “I attack the orc with my sword” is a sufficient statement of goal and approach. D&D doesn’t actually have much more complexity than that in terms of attacks. 

Could better narrative improve a player’s outcome? Yeah absolutely. Should the player state some goal and approach that could not possibly fail, then the dice would never come into play at all. Properly applied, the action resolution system determines the outcome of actions where there is some amount of uncertainty as to whether that action may succeed or fail. 

Some DMs run absolutely every attack through the dice. Some run every action through the dice too. That’s fine. But I don’t. 

In the trap case, if you find and cut the tripwire, you have no chance of tripping over it. If the trip wire is a trigger, you might set off the effect. But you might also preempt the effect, thereby nullifying the potential consequence of tripping the wire. 

That’s why my little account included my players playing smarter and having fewer dice rolls.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It also assumes a mechanically mediated approach to play that doesn't suck out loud when it comes to modeling that kind of archetype, which is possibly one of the least-warranted assumptions in the history of the hobby.



Seriously, you need to find some better games!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2018)

Bawylie said:


> Properly applied, the action resolution system determines the outcome of actions where there is some amount of uncertainty as to whether that action may succeed or fail.
> 
> Some DMs run absolutely every attack through the dice. Some run every action through the dice too. That’s fine. But I don’t.



I assume you're talking here about 5e. (Eg there are some RPGs where the rules are "say 'yes' or roll the dice", and the test for saying "yes" isn't _uncertainty_ but stakes, theme and pacing.)

In the context of 5e, what factors do you think feed into uncertainty? Eg do you worry about the sun getting in a fighter's eyes? Or the chance that someone might sneeze? Are you able to give an example of an approach to killing an orc via swordplay that wouldn't require an attack roll?


----------



## Bawylie (Apr 28, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I assume you're talking here about 5e. (Eg there are some RPGs where the rules are "say 'yes' or roll the dice", and the test for saying "yes" isn't _uncertainty_ but stakes, theme and pacing.)
> 
> In the context of 5e, what factors do you think feed into uncertainty? Eg do you worry about the sun getting in a fighter's eyes? Or the chance that someone might sneeze? Are you able to give an example of an approach to killing an orc via swordplay that wouldn't require an attack roll?




I am talking about 5E. 

I don’t worry about the sun or sneezing. 

I can definitely think of an example whereby a player can kill an orc with a sword without requiring an attack roll. Or a damage roll. Say for instance the player has gone for the classic move of disarming the opponent and putting them into a hold with a blade to the throat. No need for an attack roll when the player then declares they cut the opponent’s throat. There might’ve been uncertainty getting up to that point, but once there, it’s automatic. 

Here’s another. The player is such a high level that the orc isn’t even a real challenge. There’s no real uncertainty that the sword swinging player will lose the duel. There’s no reason to require attack and damage rolls. 

So yeah. There’s a few scenarios where a smarter move avoids dice. And there’s a few where there simply isn’t any question about the outcome.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2018)

Bawylie said:


> I can definitely think of an example whereby a player can kill an orc with a sword without requiring an attack roll. Or a damage roll. Say for instance the player has gone for the classic move of disarming the opponent and putting them into a hold with a blade to the throat. No need for an attack roll when the player then declares they cut the opponent’s throat. There might’ve been uncertainty getting up to that point, but once there, it’s automatic.



When GMing 4e I treat the effect of a successufl manoeuvre of that sort as "minionising" the NPC. So then a successful attack will kill/disable - but that final check is still needed.

The way that combat is resolved in 4e generally means that those sorts of minionising moves aren't possible - or, rather, are what you get to when you've reduced the NPC's hit points down to a small handful. Minionising as an end-run around the combat mechanics is something that happens in a skill challenge or similar non-combat context.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 28, 2018)

I'd require an attack roll on the held target... hefty bonuses, but still, a roll needed. In 5E, Advantage, and the AC takes disadvantage (which, for a fixed score, like Passive Perception or AC, is a -5).
There's still a chance of failure; a momentary distraction is all some need to do the disarm.


----------



## Bawylie (Apr 28, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> I'd require an attack roll on the held target... hefty bonuses, but still, a roll needed. In 5E, Advantage, and the AC takes disadvantage (which, for a fixed score, like Passive Perception or AC, is a -5).
> There's still a chance of failure; a momentary distraction is all some need to do the disarm.




IMO, the player that successfully maneuvered their enemy into such a position has eliminated the chance for failure. 

If some intervening action provided a distraction or otherwise inhibited the player’s action, that’s another consideration. But in the example I gave, there wasn’t one. So no chance of failure.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 28, 2018)

Bawylie said:


> IMO, the player that successfully maneuvered their enemy into such a position has eliminated the chance for failure.
> 
> If some intervening action provided a distraction or otherwise inhibited the player’s action, that’s another consideration. But in the example I gave, there wasn’t one. So no chance of failure.




One of the hidden core concepts of D&D from 3.0 on: if it does damage or status effects, there's ALWAYS a chance of failure. Disad, that's 39/400 (9.75%), normal 1/20 (5%), advantage, 1/400 (0.25%). Same odds, but reversed, for save based ones.

Only a very few spells in 5e have guaranteed damage, and it's low. 5E's coup d'grace isn't an autohit nor autokill, either - it's advantage to hit and auto-crit on hit.

No active target should be better odds than a coup d'grace.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 28, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> One of the hidden core concepts of D&D from 3.0 on: if it does damage or status effects, there's ALWAYS a chance of failure. Disad, that's 39/400 (9.75%), normal 1/20 (5%), advantage, 1/400 (0.25%). Same odds, but reversed, for save based ones.
> 
> Only a very few spells in 5e have guaranteed damage, and it's low. 5E's coup d'grace isn't an autohit nor autokill, either - it's advantage to hit and auto-crit on hit.
> 
> No active target should be better odds than a coup d'grace.




"Hidden" core concepts aren't.  You're free to play that way, but it's not actually a core concept.  See _Magic Missile_.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 28, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> "Hidden" core concepts aren't.  You're free to play that way, but it's not actually a core concept.  See _Magic Missile_.




Its obliquely referenced in the DMG section on spell creation, and it's explicit that all attacks fail on a natural 1. 
You're welcome to ignore that in a home game, but since I mostly play/run AL, I'm NOT allowed to.

Further, the rules are explicit that a helpless target is only advantage to hit and auto crit, not insta-kill.

RTFM.


----------



## Bawylie (Apr 29, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Its obliquely referenced in the DMG section on spell creation, and it's explicit that all attacks fail on a natural 1.
> You're welcome to ignore that in a home game, but since I mostly play/run AL, I'm NOT allowed to.
> 
> Further, the rules are explicit that a helpless target is only advantage to hit and auto crit, not insta-kill.
> ...




The rules work for me. If I don’t ask for an attack roll, then what that rule says about a natural 1 is irrelevant. I’m welcome to ignore any rule at any time right? Rule zero.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Are you able to give an example of an approach to killing an orc via swordplay that wouldn't require an attack roll?



 IIRC, the 5e line on uncertainty applies to declared actions that don't already have a defined procedure, which is still almost everything, but not attacks or saving throws.
That said, if the orc is profoundly overmatched it wouldn't be odd not to bother rolling.



Elfcrusher said:


> Who the heck are you responding to?  Did somebody say that Charm spells used against PCs are badwrongfun?  (If so I missed it.)





Darth Solo said:


> Yeah.
> The OP suggests that certain rpgs infringe on the player's ability to control their character. .




I think Geas has also come up in this thread.


----------



## Bawylie (Apr 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> IIRC, the 5e line on uncertainty applies to declared actions that don't already have a defined procedure, which is still almost everything, but not attacks or saving throws.
> That said, if the orc is profoundly overmatched it wouldn't be odd not to bother rolling.
> 
> 
> ...




From the DMG Page 236:
THE ROLE OF DICE 
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the 
outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you. 

That’s the lead graph. Subsequent paragraphs talk about different approaches to the dice. Nothing mandates dice for actions that already have a defined procedure. The definitive rule is “it’s up to you” and everything else is a guideline or best practice on how to use dice but not necessarily when to.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 29, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Its obliquely referenced in the DMG section on spell creation, and it's explicit that all attacks fail on a natural 1.
> You're welcome to ignore that in a home game, but since I mostly play/run AL, I'm NOT allowed to.
> 
> Further, the rules are explicit that a helpless target is only advantage to hit and auto crit, not insta-kill.
> ...




Yes, I'm well aware of the rules and I made my statement with the full knowledge of both things you've just pointed out.  Attacking a helpless foe is not the same thing as already having a blade to a helpless foe's throat.  If I, as DM, decide there's no uncertainty, the auto-fail on a one doesn't matter - no dice are rolled.  Further, for spells, since you mentioned them, a target with a save modifier of -3 cannot make a DC 18 save no matter what -- it's automatically successful.  

RTFM, indeed.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2018)

Bawylie said:


> From the DMG Page 236:
> THE ROLE OF DICE
> Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the
> outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.
> ...




Hey, it's DM Empowerment, all the way, but that's not what I was trying to recall, rather it was a specific guideline & it's context I wasn't 100% certain of, not whether it was a guideline.

It's really a given in any RPG, whether they spell out a Rule 0 or Golden Rule or not, or even go out of their way to claim the opposite, that the GM can change the rules of the game as much as he wants.

Where 5e and many other games lean toward further empowering the GM isn't in granting that unnecessary permission explicitly, but in leaving places where GM judgement must be exercised to keep the game flowing.

I had the impression saves, attack rolls and maybe a few other things didn't quite go there...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Hey, it's DM Empowerment, all the way, but that's not what I was trying to recall, rather it was a specific guideline & it's context I wasn't 100% certain of, not whether it was a guideline.
> 
> It's really a given in any RPG, whether they spell out a Rule 0 or Golden Rule or not, or even go out of their way to claim the opposite, that the GM can change the rules of the game as much as he wants.
> 
> ...




And, clearly, others read the same stuff and  got a different impression. 

And we're not talking people that haven't done their homework on the rules.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Hey, it's DM Empowerment, all the way, but that's not what I was trying to recall, rather it was a specific guideline & it's context I wasn't 100% certain of, not whether it was a guideline.
> 
> It's really a given in any RPG, whether they spell out a Rule 0 or Golden Rule or not, or even go out of their way to claim the opposite, that the GM can change the rules of the game as much as he wants.
> 
> ...




It doesn't seem to me you are reading what they are saying correctly.  I don't think they are arguing that because of Rule 0 they can override the combat rules.  They are saying that whether or not a roll is required to accomplish a task is up to them, and if they rule that no attack roll is necessary then it's not 'using Rule 0 to change the rules' to allow automatic success.  Bawylie is invoking Rule 0 to decide when tests are necessary, not to change the rules.

To argue that's changing the rules would be to argue that any time a character opens a door he is supposed to make a strength check.

If, on the other hand, the DM says you have to make an attack roll and says "...but if you roll a miss then it's still a hit..."  _then_ he's using Rule 0 to house rule.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's really a given in any RPG, whether they spell out a Rule 0 or Golden Rule or not, or even go out of their way to claim the opposite, that the GM can change the rules of the game as much as he wants.



This isn't a given at all! The rules of a game are subject to decision by all the participants. That's just a basic fact about games.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This isn't a given at all! The rules of a game are subject to decision by all the participants. That's just a basic fact about games.



 It depends on table dynamics, like how hard it is to find a game or for a game to find new players.  With most, more niche, RPGs finding enough players to run can be a challenge, while with the current ed if D&D there's usually a lot of players relative to DMs, so DMs are empowered in more than just the rules.



Elfcrusher said:


> It doesn't seem to me you are reading what they are saying correctly.  I don't think they are arguing that because of Rule 0 they can override the combat rules.  .



 This sounded like a recapitulation of 3e's (ironic, in retrospect) Rule 0, itself, clearly derivative of Storyteller's Golden Rule:

"The definitive rule is “it’s up to you” and everything else is a guideline or best practice " 

5e doesn't give it a cute name and precise definition, but DM Empowerment permeates it.  So, that's not what I was unsure about, rather it was the use and context of 'uncertainty,' which in the brief moments I've had with my PH this weekend didn't jump out at me.  I guess I'm remembering something from one of the pdfs...

::shrug::  
Not that important to the broader discussion...


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It depends on table dynamics, like how hard it is to find a game or for a game to find new players.  With most, more niche, RPGs finding enough players to run can be a challenge, while with the current ed if D&D there's usually a lot of players relative to DMs, so DMs are empowered in more than just the rules.
> 
> This sounded like a recapitulation of 3e's (ironic, in retrospect) Rule 0, itself, clearly derivative of Storyteller's Golden Rule:
> 
> ...




The "rule 0" may not be important, but the point they are making is: that whether or not a roll is required is up to the GM, so in a given situation ruling that no roll is required is not changing the rules.

I'm touchy about this because it annoys me when...certain people...use the argument, dripping with sarcasm, "Sure you _can_ do that, because I guess ultimately the DM/GM can change any rule he wants...."  It's really saying, "My interpretation is RAW and your interpretation is houseruling."

Likewise, I don't think it's "DM Empowerment" to rule that no roll is required.  It's the DM's primary _job_ to determine if a roll is required, and, if so, which one.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'm touchy about this because it annoys me when...certain people...use the argument, dripping with sarcasm, "Sure you _can_ do that, because I guess ultimately the DM/GM can change any rule he wants...."  It's really saying, "My interpretation is RAW and your interpretation is houseruling."



Nod. All the more so since this is a general RPG discussion, so specific systems are, at most, of interest as examples.



> Likewise, I don't think it's "DM Empowerment" to rule that no roll is required.  It's the DM's primary _job_ to determine if a roll is required, and, if so, which one.



 Where 5e rather cleverly supports DM Empowerment, in that context, is in giving no fixed DC, nor even specific applicable bonus, to most potential resolutions outside attack rolls, saves, and a few specific skill applications, so they must turn to the DM before rolling...


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Just on this point - I agree with your particular example.
> 
> But Luke Crane does comment, in one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, that in his experience the use of social mechanics to resolve PC vs PC arguments does (i) help the group at the table reach consensus on what to do next, and (ii) makes players feel more comfortable to have their PC argue with another PC, precisely because there's a way of resolving it at the table which sees the game go on, rather than having everything grind to a halt due to this social issue with no straightforward resolution.
> 
> ...





billd91 said:


> I'm generally of Lanefan's mind here and I normally don't have a problem with game mechanics taking away agency, even via mundane methods... but only for a little while. I have no problem with the otherwise controversial Pathfinder feat Antagonize - which allows a character to force another to launch an attack at them via a skill check. But then it's a very short duration - just enough time for the target to get a turn and be compelled to attack the antagonizing character (be it a PC or NPC). The effect is pretty much limited to just that one attack and that's an important distinction when overriding or compelling a player's control over his PC. The general trend in D&D/PF and superhero games is to generally *limit* the effects of mind control-type abilities - either to short durations or to non-self destructive behaviors.
> 
> Using a social skill or other mechanic to engage in PvP to determine the outcome of an argument or compel a PC to agree to rescue the nobleman's daughter is a bit more of an open-ended time frame. If one crewmember wins the argument (via some kind of mechanical resolution) over the others on what mission to pursue next in Traveller, that has a duration of weeks in all likelihood (considering each FTL jump is 1 week). The same may be true of persuading the PCs to rescue someone's daughter - a fairly long duration may follow. This is directly contrary to the trend you see in powers, magical and super, that can be expected to override someone's will in extraordinary ways (in contrast to the ordinary ways of making a good pitch and offering a lot of money as a bribe). And that's why certain kinds of agency affecting examples that have been used here, I find very problematic.



billd91 refers to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], but it was my post above that Lanefan described as "awful . . . and . . . worse".

Players sometimes disagree with one another. At the table, these disagreements have to be resolved. When they are resolved, not everyone will get everything that they want.

There are various ways of resolving disagreements. Tossing a coin is one time-honoured one. Given that we are talking in this context about RPGs, most of which use more sophisticated versions of coin-tossing to resolve outcomes, I really can't see what is outrageous about players using those methods to settle their disagreements.

(Also: the fact that a FTL Jump is 1 week in the fiction seems irrelevant to anything; that week takes a couple of minutes to resolve at the table.)


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2018)

I ran a session of Cortex+ Heroic yesterday.

The PCs entered the mountain peaks, still heading north on their quest to find out what is happening to the Northern Lights, and why a terrible winter has fallen.

They were confronted by a group of mountain folk - a wyvern rider with a flight of wyverns, and Asgeir their chieftain.

The PC swordthane tried to persuade Asgeir to let the group pass (at the table, a social manoeuvre); but Asgeir refused to yield, insisting that the group would not pass, leaving the PC uncertain about what to do next (at the table, a successful reaction with additional DM-side resource spent to inflict Mental Stress on the PC).

The situation therefore turned into a combat; and the PC sorcerer cleared the snow from the narrow defile so that the PCs would be able to pass without any assistance from the mountain folk. But neither the wyvern rider nor Asgeir was beaten down: when the wyvern rider was brought down from his wyvern, he tried to stab the sorcerer, who ensnared him with sorcery (at the table, stressed out with mental stress); and the PC troll, who was fighting Asgeir, inflicted physical stress but also emotional stress, and it was the latter that led to Asgeir's defeat (at the table, stressed out via emotional stress), shamed at the realisation that he could stand successfully against this troll.

The players then decided that they would persuade Asgeir to lead them through the pass to the next stage of their quest. So the sorcerer roused him (at the table, removing the emotional stress) and then another PC (the troll, the swordthane or both - I can't remember properly) persuaded him to lead the PCs through the mountains. In the fiction, Asgeir took the PCs to the mountain village; at the table, the players were able to get the advantage of a transition scene rather than moving straight on to another action scene. This meant that the PCs were able to heal, and the players could spend XP. The PCs also learned that they would meet the Earth Giant if they travelled further up into the mountains, which gave them the opportunity to prepare various charms to help fight giants.

The PCs then struck out, and indeed met the Earth Giant. Again, the swordthane went first. He tried to persuade the Earth Giant to let the PCs pass, but the giant refused (at the table, I rolled a successful reaction for the giant). The troll then tried a different approach (the PC does not have Social expertise but does have Trading expertise): he asked the giant what the price would be for the PCs to pass. At the table, this succeeded, imposing a Name My Price complication on the giant (rated at d8). The Earth Giant then replied "I will let you pass if you promise to defeat the valkyries for me, and stop them taking souls for the gods". At the table, I rolled an action against the troll to impose an appropriate complication on him - but the player rolled a successful reaction, and spent a player-side resource to impose an effect on the giant. In the fiction, the troll retorted that the price being demanded was too high - stepping up the Name My Price complication to d10.

Before the negotiations could continue, the PC berserker - who has foresworn attempt to talk and reason, in favour of action - hurled his net at the giant to try and ensnare some part of its body. The giant, however, leapt away (at the table, the reaction - which included the giant's Leaping power - was successful). We decided that this ended the scene.

This is illustrative of how social mechanics work, in my experience of them.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> billd91 refers to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], but it was my post above that Lanefan described as "awful . . . and . . . worse".
> 
> Players sometimes disagree with one another. At the table, these disagreements have to be resolved. When they are resolved, not everyone will get everything that they want.
> 
> ...




Players agreeing to flip a coin is *players agreeing among themselves* not one overriding another’s wishes via a PC’s skill check or power, as described in the initial exchange. *So* different I’m actually shocked I have to bring that up.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Players agreeing to flip a coin is *players agreeing among themselves* not one overriding another’s wishes via a PC’s skill check or power, as described in the initial exchange. *So* different I’m actually shocked I have to bring that up.



What's the difference between agreeing to flip a coin and agreeing to a mechanical resolution?


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 30, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Good RP requires accepting that there are limits imposed by the situation.The character is NOT the player, and the character is a piece in a game; that game includes Roleplaying as a fundamental concept and mode of play.The inclusion of mental stats means the mental abilities of the character are part of the game, not just the RP.Spells that affect minds are not limited to affecting NPC'sMorale rules are not exclusive to NPCs, either.I tend toward the simulationist mode of thought..."
> 
> To me the issue is **who** decides which actions fall into "good RP" for a situation and who decides which actions don't.



IMHO, I would say that "good RP" is less about "*who* decides which actions fall into 'good RP' for a situation," but, rather, it is more about the ethical framework that guides tabletop RP as praxis.

In regards to your central issue, however, my own experiences have led me to believe that these are mostly resolved by the group at the table rather than simply the character's player or GM. (This delves into the issue of the Social Contract of the game table and its participants.) The player tends to be the most invested for their character, but the hermeneutics of one's "character" often gets debated by _all_ players and the GM. For example, the group may be talking to Player 1 about their Character 1, "The intent of your RP choices may be X, but you are coming across to the group is not X but as Y instead."


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What's the difference between agreeing to flip a coin and agreeing to a mechanical resolution?




If you want to roleplay flipping a coin, that's fine.  Your character grudgingly agrees to the other character's plan because in-game he lost the coin toss.  The roll of the die is modeling the in-game coin flip.  

That's categorically different from using the roll of the die to determine who persuades whom.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> If you want to roleplay flipping a coin, that's fine.  Your character grudgingly agrees to the other character's plan because in-game he lost the coin toss.  The roll of the die is modeling the in-game coin flip.
> 
> That's categorically different from using the roll of the die to determine who persuades whom.



Sure. I wasn't talking about roleplaying flipping a coin.

EDIT: I was replying to posts that suggested that the resolution process I described suppressed player agency. If players are happy to resolve the debate between PCs in some mechanical fashion, that is no more a burden on their agency than agreeing to flip a coin. That's my point.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 30, 2018)

Ok, here's a (potentially) new way of looking at this:

A couple of posters have made the argument, "When somebody makes a successful attack roll against you, you can't decide that your character is unaffected, so why should you be able to do so when somebody makes a successful Persuasion roll against you?"

It's true: when somebody makes a successful attack roll against you, you can't decide to not take the damage.  But how you respond to it, rationally or irrationally, is up to you.  You could flee, you could fight back, you could try to parlay, you could burst into song, you could get angry/sad/friendly/horny/etc.  Your response is entirely yours.  It's totally reasonable to counter this by saying, "Nuh-uh...when somebody hits you with a sword and nearly kills you it's just not reasonable or realistic to suddenly feel like singing."  But that's what makes RPGs so unpredictable and great: you _do_ get to decide such things.

So let's say we can agree that a successful Persuasion check does in fact persuade a PC.  Of what?  I would argue that at most you succeed in persuading the PC that (for example) your plan is the best plan.  Or that rescuing the Duke's daughter is a good idea.  Or whatever.  But that's not the same as persuading the PC _to do something_.  

If it were, then all those anti-smoking ads would actually reduce smoking.  Right?  (For the uninitiated, all the research shows that smokers generally do believe the messages of those ads, and they just don't care.)

The difference between persuading somebody that something is true, and that as a result a certain course of action makes the most sense, is _vastly_ different from persuading them to actually take action.

"Yes, I can see the sense of that.  And I'm insulted that he thinks it's all about money for me, so I'm still not going to help him."

So, although I still don't love the idea that a dice roll dictates what my character believes, I'd be willing to compromise and agree that I can be persuaded of the truth of something.  As long as how I respond to that truth is still mine to determine.  And fair is fair: the same thing is true when PCs persuade NPCs: you can change beliefs but you can't compel behaviors.

(Unless magic, of course. Because only magic can also compel the behavior.)

This involves being careful with phrasing: you don't persuade the guard to let you through; you persuade the guard that you are friends with the King.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Sure. I wasn't talking about roleplaying flipping a coin.
> 
> EDIT: I was replying to posts that suggested that the resolution process I described suppressed player agency. If players are happy to resolve the debate between PCs in some mechanical fashion, that is no more a burden on their agency than agreeing to flip a coin. That's my point.



I think you're arguing against something no one is claiming, though.  Is there a specific post or poster you had in mind?  I may have missed it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Sure. I wasn't talking about roleplaying flipping a coin.
> 
> EDIT: I was replying to posts that suggested that the resolution process I described suppressed player agency. If players are happy to resolve the debate between PCs in some mechanical fashion, that is no more a burden on their agency than agreeing to flip a coin. That's my point.




The difference is that one requires specific roleplaying, the other does not.  I can react to an in-game coin flip however I choose.  (Anger, reneging on the agreement, relief, etc.)  But apparently there are restrictions on how I am supposed to react to somebody else's Persuade roll.   "You can react however you want, as long as you are persuaded."


----------



## iserith (Apr 30, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, here's a (potentially) new way of looking at this:
> 
> A couple of posters have made the argument, "When somebody makes a successful attack roll against you, you can't decide that your character is unaffected, so why should you be able to do so when somebody makes a successful Persuasion roll against you?"
> 
> It's true: when somebody makes a successful attack roll against you, you can't decide to not take the damage.  But how you respond to it, rationally or irrationally, is up to you.  You could flee, you could fight back, you could try to parlay, you could burst into song, you could get angry/sad/friendly/horny/etc.  Your response is entirely yours.  It's totally reasonable to counter this by saying, "Nuh-uh...when somebody hits you with a sword and nearly kills you it's just not reasonable or realistic to suddenly feel like singing."  But that's what makes RPGs so unpredictable and great: you _do_ get to decide such things.




It depends on the system how this all works. In D&D 5e, I would have to question why the DM is making a Charisma (Persuasion) roll for an NPC to influence a PC in the first place. The DM uses an ability check when the result of a task is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence of failure. But the rules plainly say that the player is the one who decides how the character acts and thinks and what he or she says. Which means that, in fact, the result of the task to influence a PC's thinking isn't uncertain at all - _it's whatever the player says it is_. Therefore, there is no need for an ability check in the first place. The DM simply describes the attempts at persuasion (or deception or intimidation) and asks "What do you do?"

Some folks use a check from the NPC to decide _how _to describe the NPC's attempt. That's not part of the adjudication process and strikes me as a belief that "if any given action smells like a skill check could apply then roll for it." But as long as it's used only to inform the DM's description of the attempt and has no mechanical impact on the PC, it's fine in my view even if I don't see a need for it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2018)

iserith said:


> It depends on the system how this all works. In D&D 5e, I would have to question why the DM is making a Charisma (Persuasion) roll for an NPC to influence a PC in the first place.



 I also question having an NPC roll a 'persuasion' check.  The usual flow of 5e is that the DM describes the situation, the players declare actions, and the DM narrates the results of those actions (possibly calling for a roll).  A player, it seems to me, is unlikely to say "I want to be persuaded to do something I don't want to do, and will refuse to do anyway!" I mean, even the kind of player who likes to play CN Chaos Sorcerer Pixies with ADD, probably wouldn't come up with that one.

Rather, in the "Duke's daughter is kidnapped" scenario, the party might hear about the event and decide they want to go see the Duke, and, once there, that they'd help look for her, for a price (baby needs a new set of plate), which would then be negotiated, with the DM possibly calling for a persuasion check... from the player of the 'face' PC, or even a group check, to get the best price for their mercenary services. 



> But the rules plainly say that the player is the one who decides how the character acts and thinks and what he or she says. Which means that, in fact, the result of the task to influence a PC's thinking isn't uncertain at all - _it's whatever the player says it is_. Therefore, there is no need for an ability check in the first place.



 The rules also still say 'specific beats general' so when a PC is charmed, frightened, confused, possessed, or whatever (loses a contested check, picks up a cursed magic item, gets really drunk, etc), he might act, think, & say things a bit differently.


----------



## iserith (Apr 30, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I also question having an NPC roll a 'persuasion' check.  The usual flow of 5e is that the DM describes the situation, the players declare actions, and the DM narrates the results of those actions (possibly calling for a roll).  A player, it seems to me, is unlikely to say "I want to be persuaded to do something I don't want to do, and will refuse to do anyway!" I mean, even the kind of player who likes to play CN Chaos Sorcerer Pixies with ADD, probably wouldn't come up with that one.




I suspect it's something like "anything that smells like it could be a check gets one." Kind of like "If lie, then Deception check" or "If threaten, then Intimidation check." It's skipping to the mechanic before thinking about whether the mechanic is needed. This may be particularly true at tables where the players ask to make checks or just make them outright without prompting, since the expectation is that the DM relies on die rolls for almost everything. So then you're left with, okay, I made a check for this NPC, but I can't really tell the player how to have his or her character act, so I guess they can do whatev's, even if I strongly imply they should act a particular way.

_And then not thinking too hard about how strange that is._


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2018)

iserith said:


> I suspect it's something like "anything that smells like it could be a check gets one." Kind of like "If lie, then Deception check" or "If threaten, then Intimidation check." It's skipping to the mechanic before thinking about whether the mechanic is needed.



 Sure, that's, in part, assuming uncertainty.  Where I was more thinking in terms of who's making the check...

...that is, the PCs should be making checks to resolve /their/ actions.  Now, maybe it'd be a contested check, and maybe the DM would make it behind the screen...

... and, of course, in any D&D other than 5e (or a 4e skill challenge) I wouldn't consider an NPC making a check to be a red flag.



> This may be particularly true at tables where the players ask to make checks or just make them outright without prompting, since the expectation is that the DM relies on die rolls for almost everything. So then you're left with, okay, I made a check for this NPC...



 Players /do/ call out checks or even results of checks without asking, sometimes - moreso if they've played 3.5 or a lot of BRP back in the day, perhaps - and, yeah, I might expect the Chaotic Silly player to blurt out "Make a _______ check for him!" more than I would the above action declaration... but I still probably wouldn't /do/ it.  ;P  And, it'd still be pretty far afield from the assumed 5e flow of play.  

Assuming it was player-instigated, though, it'd hardly be unfair to expect said instigating player to abide by it.


----------



## pemerton (May 1, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think you're arguing against something no one is claiming, though.  Is there a specific post or poster you had in mind?  I may have missed it.



Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next.

 [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency.

My view is that players agreeing to toss a coin doesn't abridge their agency; and that - by pretty strict analogy - players agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a resolution process doesn't either.



Elfcrusher said:


> The difference is that one requires specific roleplaying, the other does not.  I can react to an in-game coin flip however I choose.  (Anger, reneging on the agreement, relief, etc.)  But apparently there are restrictions on how I am supposed to react to somebody else's Persuade roll.   "You can react however you want, as long as you are persuaded."



I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here. I was replying to a post by [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], which was in turn a response to a particular post of mine, about using a mechanical system to resolve an argument between players about what to do next.

Here is a repost:



pemerton said:


> Luke Crane does comment, in one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, that in his experience the use of social mechanics to resolve PC vs PC arguments does (i) help the group at the table reach consensus on what to do next, and (ii) makes players feel more comfortable to have their PC argue with another PC, precisely because there's a way of resolving it at the table which sees the game go on, rather than having everything grind to a halt due to this social issue with no straightforward resolution.
> 
> In my Cortex+ Heroic game the PCs argue with one another from time to time, inflicting mental or emotional stress on one another (because some of the PCs have milestones which yield XP when this happens, some of the players are always on the lookout for a chance to do this). In my 4e game once, and in my Classic Traveller game more than once, I've used an impromptu social mechanic to resolve a seemingly interminable PC-vs-PC argument about what to do next - eg in Traveller I have each side roll, with a side that includes a noble, or a PC with Leader expertise, getting bonuses.
> 
> The side that loses agrees to go along with the side that wins - at the table first and foremost, and therefore in the fiction also.



I should also add that, at least once in my BW campaign, a dispute between PCs has been resolved via Duel of Wits.

As I've explained, I don't believe that this sort of resolution burdens player agency, for just the same reason that agreeing to toss a coin would.


----------



## billd91 (May 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next.
> 
> [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency.
> 
> ...




Yeah, see, I think there are very few things about this quote that doesn't set off multiple red flags for players like me and Lanefan. I can't speak for him, but I can start with *my* reasons for finding this problematic.
1) Players having XP incentives to PvP. I'm not necessarily against reasonable PvP that grows out of situation, but I sure don't give my players incentives to antagonize each other.
2) Interminable PC vs PC arguments - that's not a failure in the game grinding to a halt, it's a failure in players to make reasonable compromises, and that's dysfunction masquerading as role playing.
3) Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do.
4) The general trend in *real* PC control powers over the years - whether magical or superpower - is to substantially limit their impact and duration. Using a social mechanic, or any other mechanic, to determine decision-making for indefinite time periods is contrary to that trend - *WAY* contrary.
5) If this really is a case of players at loggerheads, that should be resolved out of character. Trying to resolve player issues as if they're PC issues - usually doesn't work. If it's PCs at absolute loggerheads, then we're back at #2 above.


----------



## Hussar (May 1, 2018)

billd91 said:


> /snip
> 
> 3) Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do./snip




But, therein lies the point.  If the 1 term mechanic is out arguing the captain with multiple levels of Leadership, because we refuse to engage mechanics between players, then the mechanic player isn't actually playing his character.  

Why should I reward poor play?  In my mind, if your character shouldn't be able to do something, but, you go right ahead and do it, that's poor play.  You're not playing the character you brought to the table.  If you don't want your character bossed around, then maybe being a 1-term mechanic was a very poor choice.  

How believable would it be if fresh out to the academy ensigns routinely told Picard off?  Everyone keeps going on and on about immersion and how removing player agency is immersion breaking, but, what immersion?  When you refuse to actually play the character you brought to the table, but, instead, play whatever the heck exists in your head, that's not immersion. 

To me, it's far, far more immersion breaking when the player refuses to actually inhabit the head of his character.


----------



## Lanefan (May 1, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, see, I think there are very few things about this quote that doesn't set off multiple red flags for players like me and Lanefan. I can't speak for him, but I can start with *my* reasons for finding this problematic.



Oddly, though I somewhat disagree with just about all your points below I still find my self arriving at the same conclusion. 



> 1) Players having XP incentives to PvP. I'm not necessarily against reasonable PvP that grows out of situation, but I sure don't give my players incentives to antagonize each other.



Ditto here, but I didn't get the sense from the examples given that this was even an issue.



> 2) Interminable PC vs PC arguments - that's not a failure in the game grinding to a halt, it's a failure in players to make reasonable compromises, and that's dysfunction masquerading as role playing.



Or it's just two or more players playing stubborn characters in character, as they should.  Just because the characters disagree to the point of digging in their heels doesn't automatically mean there's dysfunction at the table, though it certainly happens.  Even then, however, I still say let 'em argue it out. (if all else fails, I've in the past seen the rest of a party carry on their own way and leave two arguing characters behind...  )



> 3) Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do.



Well, players sometimes do too, in a way: the loudmouth always overtalking the shyer quieter player, for example.

That said, one assumes the DM would - if such mechanics were used to reslove a PC-vs.-PC argument - enforce upon them the requisite penalties/bonuses given by what those PCs have going for them or not.



> 4) The general trend in *real* PC control powers over the years - whether magical or superpower - is to substantially limit their impact and duration. Using a social mechanic, or any other mechanic, to determine decision-making for indefinite time periods is contrary to that trend - *WAY* contrary.



This might perhaps be another reason I don't like social mechanics; I don't agree with the nerfing on the magical side that you refer to, and the power level there colours my view of social mechanics and what they could potentially do. 



> 5) If this really is a case of players at loggerheads, that should be resolved out of character. Trying to resolve player issues as if they're PC issues - usually doesn't work. If it's PCs at absolute loggerheads, then we're back at #2 above.



If it's players at loggerheads and the argument spills out of character then the smackdown hammer comes out.  If it's just characters at loggerheads they can go on all night for all I care. 

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (May 1, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> If it's just characters at loggerheads they can go on all night for all I care.



Whereas I do care. If the discussion is just going round in circles, and seems to be getting no closer to agreement, I want to bring it to a resolution.



billd91 said:


> Yeah, see, I think there are very few things about this quote that doesn't set off multiple red flags for players like me and Lanefan. I can't speak for him, but I can start with *my* reasons for finding this problematic.
> 1) Players having XP incentives to PvP. I'm not necessarily against reasonable PvP that grows out of situation, but I sure don't give my players incentives to antagonize each other.



When players can resolve conflicts between their PCs using the mechanics, the conflicts don't generally produce antagonism, at least in my experience.

More generally - the argument against something I'm doing is that my players need to be protected from the consequences of their own RPGing? That's a new one!



billd91 said:


> Interminable PC vs PC arguments - that's not a failure in the game grinding to a halt, it's a failure in players to make reasonable compromises, and that's dysfunction masquerading as role playing.



So reasonable compromises are good, but mechanically mediated ones are bad? Because they're not _reasonable_?

In any event, I don't regard players arguing about the proper way forward as bad. When the stakes are high, and different PCs have differing goals, then there _should_ be disagreement and debate. But it can be handy to have a way to resolve it that doesn't require any player to squib in the play of their PC. Mechanical resolution is one way to do that.



billd91 said:


> Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do.



Well, as  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] says, that's part of the point. Bringing a high-CHA PC to the table sometimes enhances your ability to get your way. (In Traveller PC generation is highly random, but each player in our game runs 2 PCs. I think on at least one occasion one player has had PCs on different sides of the debate about what to do next.)

Anyway, this goes back to my basic point: if the players agree, then there is no burden on their agency.



billd91 said:


> The general trend in *real* PC control powers over the years - whether magical or superpower - is to substantially limit their impact and duration. Using a social mechanic, or any other mechanic, to determine decision-making for indefinite time periods is contrary to that trend - *WAY* contrary.



You seem to be talking about one system: D&D.

I think you're also misdescribing what is happening in the episodes of play I describe. The players are committed to the PCs going _somewhere_ as a party (because they, the players, all want to be part of the action). But they disagree as to where (eg one group wants to make planetfall, the other wants to keep going; one group wants to follow a lead to the Abyss, another wants to follow a lead to the Underdark; etc). What is being resolved is which way to go. In the fiction, the PCs of the player(s) who lost the contest agree to go along with the others. That is not "determining decision-making for indefinite time periods". It's agreeing to one proposal.




billd91 said:


> If this really is a case of players at loggerheads, that should be resolved out of character. Trying to resolve player issues as if they're PC issues - usually doesn't work. If it's PCs at absolute loggerheads, then we're back at #2 above.



Why? Why is the players agreeing to a resolution mechanic that reflects what it is that their PCs bring to the debate unreasonable?

I mean, you say that "it usually doesn't work". I'm here to tell you that, for me, it worked. Luke Crane reports that it worked for him too. I guess you're saying that it doesn't, or wouldn't, work for you, but why does that mean my group is doing something wrong?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, therein lies the point.  If the 1 term mechanic is out arguing the captain with multiple levels of Leadership, because we refuse to engage mechanics between players, then the mechanic player isn't actually playing his character.
> 
> Why should I reward poor play?  In my mind, if your character shouldn't be able to do something, but, you go right ahead and do it, that's poor play.  You're not playing the character you brought to the table.  If you don't want your character bossed around, then maybe being a 1-term mechanic was a very poor choice.
> 
> ...




I'll point out...once again...that you are choosing a particular form ("actor stance", it's apparently called) of 'immersion', and many of us don't find actor stance very compelling or interesting.  Or immersive.

Ultimately, the games are about the players making decisions and then narrating how their characters achieve them.  Sometimes we use dice to determine their success.  If we are also using the dice to make the _decisions_, then why are we bothering to include players?


----------



## Ovinomancer (May 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next.



That's what you're arguing for, not against.


> [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency..



 [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is arguing for using _no_ social mechanics at all, not against certain applications of them.

So far, it looks like windmills and not real positions you're tilting against.


----------



## Aldarc (May 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> How believable would it be if fresh out to the academy ensigns routinely told Picard off?



Shut up, Wesley.


----------



## aramis erak (May 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Whereas I do care. If the discussion is just going round in circles, and seems to be getting no closer to agreement, I want to bring it to a resolution.
> 
> When players can resolve conflicts between their PCs using the mechanics, the conflicts don't generally produce antagonism, at least in my experience.



 Mine, as well.



pemerton said:


> You seem to be talking about one system: D&D.




A system which is more than 75% of all recorded plays and about 80% of sales, worldwide, in the RPG marketspace.  If one is going to pick a system to be the exemplar, it's the best choice. 



pemerton said:


> I mean, you say that "it usually doesn't work". I'm here to tell you that, for me, it worked. Luke Crane reports that it worked for him too. I guess you're saying that it doesn't, or wouldn't, work for you, but why does that mean my group is doing something wrong?




I also have had it work. And work beautifully.

One of the issues, tho', is that there are two major constituencies (and a handful more minor ones), and the workable varies between them:
1) groups who are largely strangers or casual acquaintances, usually playing  in public venues.
2) groups who are long term friends, usually playing at someone's home.

They react differently. The tools in BW work great with group 1.

They're not needed much in group 2.

There won't be a consensus because the solutions are different for the various constituencies.


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'll point out...once again...that you are choosing a particular form ("actor stance", it's apparently called) of 'immersion', and many of us don't find actor stance very compelling or interesting.  Or immersive.
> 
> Ultimately, the games are about the players making decisions and then narrating how their characters achieve them.  Sometimes we use dice to determine their success.  If we are also using the dice to make the _decisions_, then why are we bothering to include players?




So your immersion in the game is independent of the character you choose to play?

That seems like a very strange approach to immersion. I’ve never heard of pawn or avatar play as being a good route to immersion.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 2, 2018)

In actual play for my game from their last mission...

PCs set in at a station collected their pay and immediately began planning an ecpedition to a graveyard of ships for a salvage run to get themselves a ship to refurb and rebuild.

A local official who had had some prior favorable contact got in touch, confirmed their plans and offered a second mission - gather id, dna, tags etc on as many of the dead in the ships so the next of kin could be identified. 

Offered to pay so much for dna and more for full remains. 

Group was inclined to say yes but suspicious and concerned about cargo space etc, so he offered to help with hiring etc for their mission. 

Solved the question and they went out both sides benefitted with no need for the persuasive npc rolling to change their mind and force them to accept.

When they got back, even sweetened deal by helping them arrange favorable sales of salvage (basically he used his "sales time"  while they were salvaging instead of them having to after they got back) establishing more good will for next time.

"NPC rolled, your character likes the deal" might have been easier but much less interesting, imo.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 2, 2018)

"In any event, I don't regard players arguing about the proper way forward as bad. When the stakes are high, and different PCs have differing goals, then there should be disagreement and debate. But it can be handy to have a way to resolve it that doesn't require any player to squib in the play of their PC. Mechanical resolution is one way to do that."

But to me, it seems that mechanical resolution in this case is "squib" (if by that you mean intentionally subdue) their roleplaying. 

The "we both disagree and we are both stubborn **is** a roleplaying in-character issue that deserves an in character resolution. It has consequences to "go to far" and the characters need to get their "why do i stay" decisions made. 

Shifting those consequenes under the "mechanics check" is cutting their decisions short **maybe**. What happens next time when the check fails or is inconclusive? What happens when the course **rolled** proves harder, at what point do the characters get to think again instead of following rolls...

Just had a sesdion where the team had their "what do we do now" with multiple options and different advocates... But in no small part because they in character value each other working together, we do not have the loggerhead ad infinitum cuz their characters dont have any "just stubborn it out til the die roll" option. The characters know not finding a way to work it out means bigger problems.

I always establish rule zero - staying together is **their job**. Nobody gets to PC their way to hang around if they create unworkable dynamics.

I find that tends to nip the "unrelenting vs unyieldings" in the bud since neither side can run the math and then run out their clock. 

(Same for NPCs but that should be obvious.)


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> In actual play for my game from their last mission...
> 
> PCs set in at a station collected their pay and immediately began planning an ecpedition to a graveyard of ships for a salvage run to get themselves a ship to refurb and rebuild.
> 
> ...




But, why would you roll dice here?  The PC's are going on a mission.  The NPC is offering an add on to that mission, not trying to convince them to do something else.  There's absolutely no stakes here at all.  They are going on the mission, regardless of the NPC.  If they say no to the NPC, nothing happens.  They still go on their mission and nothing really changes.  

For mechanics to be involved, there should be stakes of some sort involved.  Otherwise, it's no different than a combat where there is zero chance of the baddies doing any real damage to the PC's.  Just write it off and move on.


----------



## pemerton (May 2, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> If we are also using the dice to make the decisions, then why are we bothering to include players?



Casting lots to resolve a disagreement among a group is not a thing that I or my group (or Luke Crane) invented. And using dice to establish parameters for choice, as part of playing a game, is not a new thing either. And in the context of RPGing, it's actually pretty standard.

I know you're not talking _only_ about this particular aspect of social mechanics, but that was the context in which [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] made his post that you responded to.



Ovinomancer said:


> it looks like windmills and not real positions you're tilting against



You must have missed [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]'s 5-point reiteration of his reasons for agreeing with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] that the technique I described is "worse than awful". And Lanefan's reiteration of his contention _about the technique I described_, although on different grounds from billd91's.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 2, 2018)

Actually, I'll temper my position a little bit: if I disagree with another player and we can't find a compromise, then I might very well agree to each making a Persuasion check to determine "which character manages to persuade the other."  

Which, topologically*, is identical to @_*iserith*_'s great advice about pvp: the way you resolve pvp is by letting the target of any action narrate the outcome.  I, as the target of an attack or spell or social skill, may agree to forego my right to narrate and instead be held to the result of the dice roll.

But that's different from the DM saying, "Somebody else made a Persuade roll against you and succeeded, therefore your character has to do what they say.  Please roleplay that."

_*Yes, I'm using 'topological' metaphorically._


----------



## iserith (May 2, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Actually, I'll temper my position a little bit: if I disagree with another player and we can't find a compromise, then I might very well agree to each making a Persuasion check to determine "which character manages to persuade the other."




That would also probably be the last time I played with that person. I'm a proponent of "Yes, and..." I'm going to find a reason for my character to go along that makes sense. If for some reason I can't do that, then something is terribly wrong with the table dynamic and I need to get out of there.

Luckily, since everyone else at my table is also a proponent of the aforementioned approach, this never comes up.


----------



## Aldarc (May 2, 2018)

I don't particularly see the issue with using a game mechanic for player (character) resolution. This goes back to the entire point of the Social Contract: participant CONSENT. From everything that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] described and overviewed, the players consented to this mechanic as a means of "conflict" resolution.


----------



## pemerton (May 2, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's no disputing the figures, but on the other hand this is a thread in General RPG. If we have to frame all our discussion, examples, analysis etc through that one system, what's even the point of having a non-D&D sub-forum?

And to follow on with a clarification: I know that you have experience across a range of non-D&D RPGs, and are bringing that to bear in this discussion. It's the seeminglykl relentless treatment of D&D as not just dominant in the market, but _normatively_ determinative of proper and legitimate RPGing, that I find a bit frustrating.



aramis erak said:


> there are two major constituencies (and a handful more minor ones), and the workable varies between them:
> 1) groups who are largely strangers or casual acquaintances, usually playing in public venues.
> 2) groups who are long term friends, usually playing at someone's home.
> 
> ...



The play examples I referred to involved an instance of group 2 (my friends and I playing in someone's home). I get the impression that Luke Crane's own experiences with BW probably involve a lot of play with friends also. (I don't know the guy or anything, but that's how his examples and advice seem to read.)

But I find even friends, when they are inhabiting their PCs, can get into disagreements about what to do next that are hard to resolve.

That said, I agree with you that different tables will want to do things differently. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] prefers to let the debate continue as long as it takes to resolve without mechanical mediation; I don't (and it sounds like you don't either).

In the context of this thread, what I was trying to do with my post was show how social mechanics can work in practice, in a way that is consistent with player agency (just like casting lots would be), reinforces the connection between the PCs as they are in the fiction and the outcome of the debate at the table (which is something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] especially has emphasised as important to him), and serves two practically useful purposes - (1) keeping play moving while (2) allowing the PCs to be less of a hive-mind rather than more of one.



5ekyu said:


> I always establish rule zero - staying together is **their job**.



In systems that favour party play (D&D and Traveller are both A-grade examples of this), the players in my games understand that they have to make compromises etc to stay together. But that doesn't stop them having PCs with different and sometimes even opposing goals and ideals. (If they didn't, there would be no need to compromise!)



5ekyu said:


> it seems that mechanical resolution in this case is "squib" (if by that you mean intentionally subdue) their roleplaying.
> 
> The "we both disagree and we are both stubborn **is** a roleplaying in-character issue that deserves an in character resolution. It has consequences to "go to far" and the characters need to get their "why do i stay" decisions made.
> 
> Shifting those consequenes under the "mechanics check" is cutting their decisions short **maybe**.



When I say they don't have to squib, what I mean is that they don't have to forsake their ideals or concede that another PC's goal is the correct one. Rather, the resolution at the table corresponds, in the fiction, to a compromise - "OK, we'll go your way first before we do my thing."

Compromise is always plagued by a first-mover problem: even if both parties can see that a compromise is required, each has an incentive to hold out and let the other be the first-mover (who thereby risks yielding more than the hold-out). In real life, people overcome the first-mover problem all the time through a mixture of social cues, pratcial imperatives ("I haven't got all day, so let's just get on with it!"), etc. At the table I think these cues aren't necessarily present - the same featues of RPGing that make it much easier for players to be brave with their PCs than it is to be brave in real life make it easier to hold-out than in real life.

The mechanics help deal with this.



5ekyu said:


> What happens next time when the check fails or is inconclusive? What happens when the course **rolled** proves harder, at what point do the characters get to think again instead of following rolls



The character- and really, in this context, we're talking about the _player_ - can always think again. No one's mind has been changed about what's important and what's not - it's a decision that's been taken, not a conversion that's occurred.

Burning Wheel has formal rules that govern the way in which a Duel of Wits is binding, and how the outcome may be challenged. The ad hoc systems I've used in 4e and Classic Traveller - being ad hoc - don't have formal rules. The answer to the question "WHen is it OK to go back on an agreement?" is the same in this context as in any other - ie it depends.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 3, 2018)

iserith said:


> That would also probably be the last time I played with that person. I'm a proponent of "Yes, and..." I'm going to find a reason for my character to go along that makes sense. If for some reason I can't do that, then something is terribly wrong with the table dynamic and I need to get out of there.
> 
> Luckily, since everyone else at my table is also a proponent of the aforementioned approach, this never comes up.




Yeah, I've never seen the situation arise, and I wouldn't suggest it.  But I find your reaction...extreme.

Just because somebody said, "Ok, I have an idea.  Let's both roll Persuasion and see which character makes a better argument..." you would never play with them again?


----------



## iserith (May 3, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yeah, I've never seen the situation arise, and I wouldn't suggest it.  But I find your reaction...extreme.
> 
> Just because somebody said, "Ok, I have an idea.  Let's both roll Persuasion and see which character makes a better argument..." you would never play with them again?




It's not the proposal to go to the mechanics, but rather that we couldn't come to an agreement in the first place. It means either he or she or I could not figure out a way to cooperate short of going to mechanics. That sounds like a problem between the player and me, so I'd rather just play in another game.

I was in a game about a year ago and there was a player who would simply not agree to anything without a big debate wherein he could find no reason for his character to agree to any proposal other players would make. You know, because "that's what my character would do." It was so crazy that I would state the opposite of what I wanted so that he'd take the position I ultimately wanted. I had been in a couple one shots prior to that time where he would do the same. I stopped playing alongside him altogether. I come to play, not to debate about playing.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, why would you roll dice here?  The PC's are going on a mission.  The NPC is offering an add on to that mission, not trying to convince them to do something else.  There's absolutely no stakes here at all.  They are going on the mission, regardless of the NPC.  If they say no to the NPC, nothing happens.  They still go on their mission and nothing really changes.
> 
> For mechanics to be involved, there should be stakes of some sort involved.  Otherwise, it's no different than a combat where there is zero chance of the baddies doing any real damage to the PC's.  Just write it off and move on.



"Nothing really changes?"

Huh?

If the PCs accept, they take on an obligation, a secondary mission. Success or failure is now success or failure of their own outting but of that other job, their other employer. 

Thats the obvious part.

Add to that, accept and get help with access to crew for the missions, dont and have more time loss and crew more determined by their somewhat more limited searches.

Add to that, easier better sell of goods afterward, better advancing relationship with authorities, good PR from the follow-up as notifications and funerals, etc etc etc and even not having the second recovery mission sent out while they salvage which would have led to... Complications.

See, to me, and to my players, that decision was a big one, one they saw as very important and that would impact the mission they were planning in the before, during and after in very pragmatic measurable ways (ignoring completely the personal angles.)

No one thought there were "absolutely no stakes here at all" or that the choices they made would not have impact.

Sometimes it seems some RPGers invested in the philosophy of rpg mechanics and "setting stakes" see things on a very selective scale, not necessarily seeing it as "immediate loss" = "stakes" but not too far off from it and also sometimes seeing it as "declared stakes" sometimes describes as the players agree abc is at stake before they roll...  

But in my experiences over the years with gamers not as invested in the philosophy of rpg mechanics, decision point like i referred to are seen as big decisions with likely significant consequences...and whether or not the characters accept or decline, are convinced or not, or if the players have choices or not are actually major stakes.

But rounding the corner backto the OP... What were the stakes for the duke "save my daughter" as far as pcs concerned, in an objective sense?

Duke wants his daughter saved, will not be happy. Is that of any value for the pcs? Do they care? Wont he send others if they say no, just like my official might have? 

Why would "duke's daughter" objective be valid stakes for rolling to convince pcs to go but "bring out our dead" not be - especially in a setting where say ressurections may be possible?

Hint: Some of the dead brought back will wind up ressurected... without that having been expressly "staked out" for the heroes so, actually, more than one "life or death" is at stake in my example.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 3, 2018)

"Casting lots to resolve a disagreement among a group is not a thing that I or my group (or Luke Crane) invented. And using dice to establish parameters for choice, as part of playing a game, is not a new thing either. And in the context of RPGing, it's actually pretty standard."

Maybe its a reading comprehension thing on my part but it seems to me that there are two different things being conflated here intentionally...

1 in character the characters choose to cast lots, wrestle, cut cards to decide the isdue. That is the characters resolving things - even though that is using chance to do it.

2 - the players chosing (or being told by the gm) to make checks to resolve it.

This is an out of character resolution, shows no "work it out to stay together" just a metagaming style end around the issue. 

That can and has proven to encourage the brinksmanship, as one sode or the other often (not limited to rpg here) sees the final end around mechanic as better chances of success than they have in character. 

If i see no way to actually convince the others, enough, to follow my lead, then the small chance of winning the role off is my best strategy ( player side) and since its just a degree question for in character stubborn... No problem there.

If there is no player-side mechsnical at the end of the rainbow, it puts the pressure back on character side resolution...


----------



## 5ekyu (May 3, 2018)

"But that doesn't stop them having PCs with different and sometimes even opposing goals and ideals. (If they didn't, there would be no need to compromise!)" 

Absolutely and that's why the ability to work thru these nedds to be done between characters, for those games, not thru external checks. 

A check to get past this one just sets the stage for the next one. This is pretty close to a give fish teach fish thing. 

The mechanics resolution to reach a non-compromising compromise handwave does not actually resolve the problem, just hides the symptom for a while.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 3, 2018)

iserith said:


> It's not the proposal to go to the mechanics, but rather that we couldn't come to an agreement in the first place. It means either he or she or I could not figure out a way to cooperate short of going to mechanics. That sounds like a problem between the player and me, so I'd rather just play in another game.
> 
> I was in a game about a year ago and there was a player who would simply not agree to anything without a big debate wherein he could find no reason for his character to agree to any proposal other players would make. You know, because "that's what my character would do." It was so crazy that I would state the opposite of what I wanted so that he'd take the position I ultimately wanted. I had been in a couple one shots prior to that time where he would do the same. I stopped playing alongside him altogether. I come to play, not to debate about playing.




Oh, I see.  I don't think we are imagining the same scenario.  I was picturing something less confrontational: two friends playing very different characters debating whether or not they should kill the captive orc, or whether or not to take the Duke's offer, or whatever, and laughing about it the whole time...but failing to actually agree on a course of action.  Yeah, if somebody is just being difficult that's different.


----------



## iserith (May 3, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, I see.  I don't think we are imagining the same scenario.  I was picturing something less confrontational: two friends playing very different characters debating whether or not they should kill the captive orc, or whether or not to take the Duke's offer, or whatever, and laughing about it the whole time...but failing to actually agree on a course of action.  Yeah, if somebody is just being difficult that's different.




At my table, such a disagreement would be color for amusement and perhaps to establish something about the characters or their relationship. Ultimately, the players would know one or the other would cave, probably the person who established the disagreement in the first place. There would just never be a point where a mechanic was required.


----------



## Lanefan (May 3, 2018)

iserith said:


> At my table, such a disagreement would be color for amusement and perhaps to establish something about the characters or their relationship. Ultimately, the players would know one or the other would cave, probably the person who established the disagreement in the first place. There would just never be a point where a mechanic was required.



Or the argument ends when someone unilaterally takes action?

For example, while two characters are arguing whether or not to kill a captive orc a third one just walks up and kills it....


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A check to get past this one just sets the stage for the next one. This is pretty close to a give fish teach fish thing.
> 
> The mechanics resolution to reach a non-compromising compromise handwave does not actually resolve the problem, just hides the symptom for a while.



I'm not sure what you think _the problem_ is.



5ekyu said:


> it seems to me that there are two different things being conflated here intentionally...
> 
> 1 in character the characters choose to cast lots, wrestle, cut cards to decide the isdue. That is the characters resolving things - even though that is using chance to do it.
> 
> ...



I don't think I quite follow the worry that you have in mind. But I'll try and put a response that seems to me to be on point (if it's not, let me know and I'll try again):

You seem to think it's OK if the PCs cast lots or toss a coin to decided. At the table, we would resolve that by throwing dice or tossing a coin or whatever.

In my case, the players, in character, have made their various cases for doing X rather than Y (or vice versa) and it's been going on for quite a while, and so I suggest "Can we roll dice for this." I can't really remember how we did it in 4e - it's too long ago - but in Classic Traveller each side just rolled 2d6 (the standard Traveller dice roll) with a bonus of 1 per character with Leader (which applied to only one group, as there is only one Leader in the party), and +1 per noble on the side (at least one time this cancelled out, as the Knight, Sir Glaxon - who is also the Leader - was on one side, while the Baron was on the other; I can't remember about the other time).

So one player on each side threw the dice, added the appropriate modifiers, and this resolved the discussion.

_In the fiction_, these are different happenings: the first (which didn't happen in my game) is the characters tossing a coin; the second (which did happen in my game) is the characters reaching a compromise, with social heft (Leader expertise, nobility) being a non-determinative but relevant factor in the outcome.

At the table, they are the same thing: bringing an end to a debate that is going round in circles by throwing dice.

So if the first is unobjectionable, why is the second a problem?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you think _the problem_ is.
> 
> I don't think I quite follow the worry that you have in mind. But I'll try and put a response that seems to me to be on point (if it's not, let me know and I'll try again):
> 
> ...



The former shows actual roleplay where the characters show they can work together, shows a compromise, because in character they come to a resolution. 

The second shows neither character reaching that point of showing they can compromise and leaves the "stubborn-off" still in play. It does establish that the player with the character who has the advantage on the now establish skill check has less reason to reach compromise in the future because they have now established these stubborn-offs will result in a skill check favoring his position.

Note, neither of these is always a problem for every sentient on every planet in every multiverse and there are probably zillions of worlds where the best solution is competitive swimming for the solution...

But one way puts "do these people work together" outside of the realm of "if they want to" into " if someone makes a roll" which sets it to kep recurring.

Now, to be clear, if there really isnt a disagreement, just a comic skit of disagreement, it can be resolved with rubber chickens. 

But when characters actually have different and strong disagreements, in my experience, bypassing the work it out just leaves the problem unresolved to come up later.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> The former shows actual roleplay where the characters show they can work together, shows a compromise, because in character they come to a resolution.
> 
> The second shows neither character reaching that point of showing they can compromise and leaves the "stubborn-off" still in play. It does establish that the player with the character who has the advantage on the now establish skill check has less reason to reach compromise in the future because they have now established these stubborn-offs will result in a skill check favoring his position.



To me there seem to be two things here.

(1) _The check replaces roleplay_. "Roleplay" here means the players presenting arguments to one another. Either approach (casting lots in character and doing so at the table; compromising in character by casting lots at the table) brings that to an end by the rolling of dice. As far as a _decision procedure_ is concerned, I simply can't see the difference between casting lots at the table while also imagining that the PCs are doing that, and casting lots at the table while imagining that one lot of PCs is relenting to the wishes of the other lot of PCs. I can accept that the _aesthetics_ are different.

(2) In my experience - which is all I can report on - the fact that being a noble or a Leader grants a bonus to a check (in 4e that might be a higher CHA, although as I said I can't properly remember how I did it) doesn't generate much incentive to hold out for checks. Because in the course of the players presenting reasons to one another, quite often they do persuade one another, meaning the debate resolves itself.



5ekyu said:


> But when characters actually have different and strong disagreements, in my experience, bypassing the work it out just leaves the problem unresolved to come up later.



Again, I'm not seeing what _the problem_ is. Disagreement between PCs is one element of the many complications and challenges that drive play.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So if the first is unobjectionable, why is the second a problem?




As I stated earlier, in one case the players are roleplaying the characters flipping a coin, simulated with dice.  The players can choose to roleplay this however they like, including deciding not to abide by the result of the flip/roll.  The flip doesn't dictate the character's thoughts/feelings, it just dictates how a coin landed in-game.

In the other case the coin flip is telling the player how to roleplay his character.  "Oh, I lost the flip therefore my character must have been persuaded."

The first case describes part of the environment, the second case removes player agency.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To me there seem to be two things here.
> 
> (1) _The check replaces roleplay_. "Roleplay" here means the players presenting arguments to one another. Either approach (casting lots in character and doing so at the table; compromising in character by casting lots at the table) brings that to an end by the rolling of dice. As far as a _decision procedure_ is concerned, I simply can't see the difference between casting lots at the table while also imagining that the PCs are doing that, and casting lots at the table while imagining that one lot of PCs is relenting to the wishes of the other lot of PCs. I can accept that the _aesthetics_ are different.
> 
> ...



Characters disagreeing is not a problem, no need to keep extolling the virtues of those. 

Also, yes, most of the time when players disagree their in character discussion can reach agreenent, one actually convinces the other. In those cases, ,we would not be loking for how to resolve the impasse... So also not an issue relevant here.

On the other, the merits or differences of the approaches - we will just have to disagree.

I see it as a significant difference as to whether the characters as played reached a way to work thru impasses or if it had to go to out of character die rolls... Much like how i see an npc actually convincing the group to accept the deal in roleplay or the gm rolling some dice to determine thry agree.

In my experience, the roleplay it and reach actual agreement gets more investment and commitment... Less likely to revisit the debate soon as a speedbump hits.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> As I stated earlier, in one case the players are roleplaying the characters flipping a coin, simulated with dice.  The players can choose to roleplay this however they like, including deciding not to abide by the result of the flip/roll.  The flip doesn't dictate the character's thoughts/feelings, it just dictates how a coin landed in-game.
> 
> In the other case the coin flip is telling the player how to roleplay his character.  "Oh, I lost the flip therefore my character must have been persuaded."
> 
> The first case describes part of the environment, the second case removes player agency.



If they agree to be bound by the coin toss, how has their agency been removed?

EDIT: I also don't think the coin toss "dictates the character's thoughts/feelings". The PC compromises. But the compromise might be grudging, resentful, cheerful, etc. The PC might be planning to go along with the others' plans when they arrive at place X, or to betray them all, or anything else.


----------



## Sadras (May 3, 2018)

@_*pemerton*_ I was just wondering given your style of play which you attribute the description 'player-driven' which is something I also would use to describe my games, but of course we might see it differently: Can your players fail (in a big way, I'm not talking about a loss of a familiar for 1 month)? 

Generally speaking failure in your typical D&D sense = TPK but there are other ways a party could fail. In your typical ToEE adventure its perhaps releasing Zuggtmoy who wreaks havoc and essentially incurs substantial changes to the setting. Given that your adventures are being played from the angle of the PCs as drivers of the story it is rather less likely.

EDIT: What I'm getting at, and perhaps I'm not being clear enough, is that the 'player agency' you ascribe to your table delivers (from my perspective) a less than hazardous experience only because the players creativity allows for the _get out of jail_ option (i.e. we search for a secret door for argument's sake).

Perhaps this is in the wrong thread. I don't know. It is so confusing now.  

We have debated this _consequence_ topic before and I think although your playstyle allows for an increase in player freedom given that they can _mess _with the setting/worldbuilding, they do lose out on what I would see as attaining a sense of achievement from defeating the BBEG in an AP given the unknown (setting, secret backstory..etc).


----------



## iserith (May 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Or the argument ends when someone unilaterally takes action?
> 
> For example, while two characters are arguing whether or not to kill a captive orc a third one just walks up and kills it....




Whether that was acceptable or not probably depends on who said what first and how it proceeded from there. If the first offer was not to kill the orc and a second player started a disagreement (again, for color), then someone else killing the orc would be negating the first offer and that would not be okay. It would be okay if it were the other way around though.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2018)

Sadras said:


> @_*pemerton*_ I was just wondering given your style of play which you attribute the description 'player-driven' which is something I also would use to describe my games, but of course we might see it differently: Can your players fail (in a big way, I'm not talking about a loss of a familiar for 1 month)?



The players can have in character goals that they don't achieve.

In my BW game, the mage PC, who is the lead PC (in that it is that player who participates in all the sessions, while others are a bit more hit-and-miss), entered the campaign with the goal of freeing his brother from possession by a balrog. At one point it was established that his brother was a nasty piece of work (because of the way that (i) another player had written a nasty magical mentor into a PC backstory, and (ii) the way the intersection between those two backstories was developed in play between the two players). Subsequently, it was established that the brother was probably evil _before_ being possessed (hence his evil caused possession, rather than the vice versa that the PC had believed). This was the result of a series of failed checks by the player of the mage PC. The conclusion of this initial arc was the second PC beheading the brother before the mage PC could stop her (in the end, it came down to a contest to see who could be the first to get to the wizard's tower where the brother was recuperating from injury; the second character won the contest).

That was a failure.

In my main 4e game (which has been on hold for most of a year while one member of the group renovates his house), the PCs' amibtion is to make it the case that the time of the Dusk War has not yet come. Yet one PC is also committed to assembling the Rod of Seven Parts, even though it is known that this is a harbinger of the Dusk War. And most of the PCs are opposed to reformulating the Lattice of Heaven, but (i) help with the assembling of the Rod, which will then allow the Lattice of Heaven to be rebuilt, and (ii) keep doing things that further the interests of the Raven Queen, although that also seems to be about helping her re-establishe the Lattice of Heaven with her as the ruler of the cosmos.

These conflicts between hopes and actions, with interweave with discordant goals among the PCs, could well lead to failure.

There have also been local failures. Here's a report of one that I wrote up and, at the time, found rather poignant. The PCs bringing destruction to the duergar would be another failure, I think.

In my Cortex+ Heroic game the PCs set out to solve the mystery of the strange Northern Lights and the disturbances in the world of the animal spirits, only to get stuck in a dungeon after being teleported deep into it by a Crypt Thing. One was able to trick the dark elves out of their treasure and return to the surface to live it up; by the time the others escaped, and rejoined him, the Fell Winter had set in and reavers were roaming the lands destroying villages. Another instance of failure.



Sadras said:


> What I'm getting at, and perhaps I'm not being clear enough, is that the 'player agency' you ascribe to your table delivers (from my perspective) a less than hazardous experience only because the players creativity allows for the _get out of jail_ option (i.e. we search for a secret door for argument's sake).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think although your playstyle allows for an increase in player freedom given that they can _mess _with the setting/worldbuilding, they do lose out on what I would see as attaining a sense of achievement from defeating the BBEG in an AP given the unknown (setting, secret backstory..etc).



A full discussion of the issue of "achievement" is probably for another thread. Composing a symphony is an achievement; so is throwing a discus 60 metres. Winning a wargame scenario is an achievement; in my view, so is devising a solution to the problem of defeating Lolth and sealing the Abyss.

I think there is something related in the neighbourhood. I had thought of posting it yesterday, but felt it might be hard to explain and/or misunderstood - but your post gives it a sensible context.

I have posted about using a particular mechanical method to _reach a paeticular compromise_ - do we go to place X next, or to place Y. Some posters have treated this as (more-or-less) equivalent to - do we do thing A, or thing B; where things A and B are understood as extended over some period of time.

This makes sense if one assumes that place X is where thing A is going to happen, and place Y is where thing B is going to happen. But if that assumption doesn't hold, then nor does the equivalence.

In the sort of game I run, the assumption doesn't hold. Place X is different from place Y, and so offers different opportunities for players to declare actions (eg you can declare different actions in the Abyss compared to the Underdark). But there is no concern that X means some pre-determined A which is different from the B the compromising PC (and player) may have wanted to pursue. Even in place X, stuff is still going to happen that speaks to that PC (it will just be Abyssal stuff rather than Underdark-y stuff).


----------



## Lanefan (May 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If they agree to be bound by the coin toss, how has their agency been removed?
> 
> EDIT: I also don't think the coin toss "dictates the character's thoughts/feelings". The PC compromises. But the compromise might be grudging, resentful, cheerful, etc. The PC might be planning to go along with the others' plans when they arrive at place X, or to betray them all, or anything else.



Ah, were this only so.

Remember, at some tables the "table mechanics" disallow betrayal: the PCs are more or less expected to co-operate at all times.  The whole "Yes, and..." thing.

Othwerwise, yeah: false agreement and later betrayal are a fine workaround.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If they agree to be bound by the coin toss, how has their agency been removed?
> 
> EDIT: I also don't think the coin toss "dictates the character's thoughts/feelings". The PC compromises. But the compromise might be grudging, resentful, cheerful, etc. The PC might be planning to go along with the others' plans when they arrive at place X, or to betray them all, or anything else.




My "other case" is when the real life coin-toss represents not an in-game coin toss, but an in-game contest of Persuasion.  Was that not clear?

It's _less_ bad if the player agrees to resolve it this way (as opposed to the GM mandating "you were outrolled at Persuasion, so your character is now persuaded) but it's still not player-driven roleplaying. In my book.


----------



## Lanefan (May 3, 2018)

iserith said:


> Whether that was acceptable or not probably depends on who said what first and how it proceeded from there. If the first offer was not to kill the orc and a second player started a disagreement (again, for color), then someone else killing the orc would be negating the first offer and that would not be okay. It would be okay if it were the other way around though.



And this gets us into a question tangential - but not at all unrelated - to the main focus of the thread: instead of game mechanics and player agency we're veering into table mechanics and player agency.

By "table mechanics" I mean accepted modes of play, level of allowable metagaming, level of allowable disagreement and-or PvP, and so forth.

In this example, extended to generality, the only player with true action-declaration agency - and not just for a single PC but in effect for the whole party! - is the one who happens to speak first.  All the other players' action-declaration agency is severely compromised (if not outright lost) for the duration of that sequence as they are bound by table mechanics to support that initial action or suggestion.

Given - as these other long threads have shown - that in most non-indie play the only true agency a player has is the freedom to declare actions for her character(s), to allow a table mechanic to take away so much of that agency so much of the time seems...odd.

Obviously it works for you and your crew.  I just can't see it working in any situation where the players tend to have strong opinions in non-game situations...which describes most (or all?) of the people I game with...as those strong opinions will doubtless be reflected in the types of characters they play.  We're not go-with-the-flow types! 

Lanefan


----------



## iserith (May 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And this gets us into a question tangential - but not at all unrelated - to the main focus of the thread: instead of game mechanics and player agency we're veering into table mechanics and player agency.
> 
> By "table mechanics" I mean accepted modes of play, level of allowable metagaming, level of allowable disagreement and-or PvP, and so forth.
> 
> ...




Nobody has "true action-declaration agency." Constraints abound both mechanically, fictionally, and socially in any game. In the method I describe, your agency isn't "severely compromised" nor "outright lost." You don't kill the orc if someone says they don't want the orc killed. Feel free to do anything else, including disagree in order to establish some aspect of your character or your character's relationship with the character with whom the character disagrees. But don't go and kill the orc. That would be breaking your agreement. Instead, think hard on why your character wouldn't kill the orc even though he might otherwise want to and, in that process, discover or reveal something about him or her. In some cases, this might even lead to the character going through a change.

What it also does is move the game along. While some groups will sit about and debate that orc's right to live, we're off looting the dungeon, leveling up, and carousing back in town. There's a reason why we cover so much more content compared to other groups I've seen in the same amount of time without sacrificing nicely developed characters.


----------



## Lanefan (May 4, 2018)

iserith said:


> Nobody has "true action-declaration agency." Constraints abound both mechanically, fictionally, and socially in any game. In the method I describe, your agency isn't "severely compromised" nor "outright lost."



You say this, but then you say this... 


> You don't kill the orc if someone says they don't want the orc killed.



...which is in complete contradiction to what you just said.

If someone says they don't want the orc killed everyone else at the table has just lost the ability to kill it...or even successfully argue for its death.  That's a major compromise of agency.



> Feel free to do anything else, including disagree in order to establish some aspect of your character or your character's relationship with the character with whom the character disagrees.



Why waste the effort making an argument the table mechanics have already banned me from winning?


> But don't go and kill the orc. That would be breaking your agreement.



What agreement?  I haven't agreed not to kill it, that's my point.


> Instead, think hard on why your character wouldn't kill the orc even though he might otherwise want to and, in that process, discover or reveal something about him or her. In some cases, this might even lead to the character going through a change.



Well, we could keep it alive long enough to question it - maybe even very painfully - but assuming orcs in this campaign are sworn enemies of civilization the last thing we want to do is leave it alive afterwards.

Is this agreement binding forever, by the way?  Can I arbitrarily slit its throat during the following night, for example?



> What it also does is move the game along. While some groups will sit about and debate that orc's right to live, we're off looting the dungeon, leveling up, and carousing back in town. There's a reason why we cover so much more content compared to other groups I've seen in the same amount of time without sacrificing nicely developed characters.



What would really foul this system up (and at the same time make it way more fun!) would be someone playing a very-low-wisdom character properly, and leading the party into stupid action after stupid action because the table mechanics wouldn't allow anyone to change its mind or prevent its actions.  Utterly unrealistic, mind you... 

Lanefan


----------



## iserith (May 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> You say this, but then you say this...
> ...which is in complete contradiction to what you just said.
> 
> If someone says they don't want the orc killed everyone else at the table has just lost the ability to kill it...or even successfully argue for its death.  That's a major compromise of agency.




I really don't think it is. I think it just looks that way to you. There's always the next orc.

Typically, when I see people on the forums raise objections to this approach, it's from a viewpoint that they'll forever be subject to some other person's decision. But don't worry - sometimes it's you who gets to decide what to do with the proverbial orc. Presumably all the players are properly socialized humans who share spotlight with each other.



Lanefan said:


> Why waste the effort making an argument the table mechanics have already banned me from winning?




First, I think "table mechanics" is a silly term and looks suspiciously like you want to conflate actual game mechanics with an agreement the players have made about how to play the game that exists separate from the game mechanics. But anyway, as I mentioned previously, a player might want to have an exchange that suggests something about his or her character or the relationship his or her character has with the character with whom he or she disagrees.



Lanefan said:


> What agreement?  I haven't agreed not to kill it, that's my point.




You as a player will have agreed to an approach that accepts the idea of a fellow player and adds to it, rather than negates or subverts it. In this example, another player's idea is not to kill the orc. You would agree to that. Your character may take issue and you may decide to play that out for color, but ultimately he or she does nothing to negate or subvert that.



Lanefan said:


> Well, we could keep it alive long enough to question it - maybe even very painfully - but assuming orcs in this campaign are sworn enemies of civilization the last thing we want to do is leave it alive afterwards.
> 
> Is this agreement binding forever, by the way?  Can I arbitrarily slit its throat during the following night, for example?




I suppose if you wanted to make a game of torture for some reason (a red flag for me), you would still be keeping your agreement as long as you kept the orc alive. Your agreement is binding as long as you want to be seen as the kind of person who keeps his agreements. I realize that's not for everyone.



Lanefan said:


> What would really foul this system up (and at the same time make it way more fun!) would be someone playing a very-low-wisdom character properly, and leading the party into stupid action after stupid action because the table mechanics wouldn't allow anyone to change its mind or prevent its actions.  Utterly unrealistic, mind you...
> 
> Lanefan




There are no rules for how to play a low-Wisdom character "properly." But that's a whole other topic (and one that's been done to death). Anyway, it is sometimes the case that a player will choose to do something like that because it will be fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable tale. Again, bear in mind, the players willingly share the spotlight and the DM has some measure of control over it to boot, so someone  acting in bad faith will be exposed pretty quickly. And someone acting somehow in good faith with what you propose won't have the spotlight all the time.


----------



## Lanefan (May 4, 2018)

iserith said:


> I really don't think it is. I think it just looks that way to you. There's always the next orc.
> 
> Typically, when I see people on the forums raise objections to this approach, it's from a viewpoint that they'll forever be subject to some other person's decision. But don't worry - sometimes it's you who gets to decide what to do with the proverbial orc.



Yes; and then I'm subjecting everyone else to my decisions, which is just as bad only in reverse.


> Presumably all the players are properly socialized humans who share spotlight with each other.



That's a really big and rarely-true assumption there - particularly in our hobby where we tend to attract those of all different degrees of socialization and willingness to claim (hog) or share (shy) the spotlight.



> First, I think "table mechanics" is a silly term and looks suspiciously like you want to conflate actual game mechanics with an agreement the players have made about how to play the game that exists separate from the game mechanics.



Table mechanics is my own term for all the social-contract out-of-character how-to-play stuff that isn't covered by the actual game rules.


> But anyway, as I mentioned previously, a player might want to have an exchange that suggests something about his or her character or the relationship his or her character has with the character with whom he or she disagrees.



Perhaps - provided there's a chance of changing the original players/character's mind.  Otherwise it's futile.



> You as a player will have agreed to an approach that accepts the idea of a fellow player and adds to it, rather than negates or subverts it. In this example, another player's idea is not to kill the orc. You would agree to that. Your character may take issue and you may decide to play that out for color, but ultimately he or she does nothing to negate or subvert that.



Unless I'm playing a meek submissive character who goes along with everything (an extremely rare occurrence), all I can say to that is not bloody likely. 

If I as a player don't have the agency to - barring the successful application of in-game magical compulsions - have my character think for itself and make its own decisions at all times, what's the point?

And if I can't stop or prevent someone from doing something stupid...or be prevented by others from doing so (frequently necessary!) then it'd be an overly-forgiving DM indeed who didn't kill us off on a regular basis. 



> I suppose if you wanted to make a game of torture for some reason (a red flag for me), you would still be keeping your agreement as long as you kept the orc alive. Your agreement is binding as long as you want to be seen as the kind of person who keeps his agreements. I realize that's not for everyone.



Torture is only for low-level types.  After that it's easier just to kill 'em and use _Speak With Dead_. 

As for keeping agreements, my agreement is to play my character to whatever personality I've given it.  Many of the characters I tend to play are either leader-types (e.g. noble knight or cleric, or military-trained legionnaire), wanna-be leader types who couldn't really lead if they tried (e.g. a Jack Sparrow knock-off, or (in 3e) a very low wisdom character with the Leadership feat), or free-thinkers to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word and the only counsel to which they will usually listen is their own.

I most certainly don't agree to agree with other people just because I have to.  There's too much of that garbage in real life (thinking of corporate leaders and politicians who surround themselves with sycophantic 'yes-men' whose only function is to agree with everything) - I sure don't want it in the game, regardless of whether I'm the leader or the yes-man. 

I'll agree to consider each situation on its own merits, as filtered through what my character would think/say/do, and in each case either agree, disagree, or not care and do something else entirely: the argument's whether to go left or right?  I go back and look for another exit... 

Lanefan


----------



## iserith (May 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Yes; and then I'm subjecting everyone else to my decisions, which is just as bad only in reverse.




If you really think about it, in any other approach someone's idea is always going to win out. It's just how long it takes to get to implementation. Sometimes you win the debate. Sometimes the guy or gal next to you does. The same outcome occurs here but without the debate which means you move forward faster.



Lanefan said:


> That's a really big and rarely-true assumption there - particularly in our hobby where we tend to attract those of all different degrees of socialization and willingness to claim (hog) or share (shy) the spotlight.




I would say game with the people who are socialized according to one's tastes. I don't game with people who hog the spotlight or who are too shy to step up. We send those people to your game. 



Lanefan said:


> Perhaps - provided there's a chance of changing the original players/character's mind.  Otherwise it's futile.




It's futile if changing minds is your goal. As I said, there would be some other goal in play there - establishing color, perhaps.



Lanefan said:


> Unless I'm playing a meek submissive character who goes along with everything (an extremely rare occurrence), all I can say to that is not bloody likely.
> 
> If I as a player don't have the agency to - barring the successful application of in-game magical compulsions - have my character think for itself and make its own decisions at all times, what's the point?
> 
> And if I can't stop or prevent someone from doing something stupid...or be prevented by others from doing so (frequently necessary!) then it'd be an overly-forgiving DM indeed who didn't kill us off on a regular basis.




Your character _can't _think for itself. Or make any decisions. You do that for it. Whatever you say it does is what it does. Your concern would necessarily have to be that you don't like the constraint placed on YOU, not your character. And that's fair enough. For us, the benefits far outweigh the constraint placed on the players.



Lanefan said:


> Torture is only for low-level types.  After that it's easier just to kill 'em and use _Speak With Dead_.
> 
> As for keeping agreements, my agreement is to play my character to whatever personality I've given it.  Many of the characters I tend to play are either leader-types (e.g. noble knight or cleric, or military-trained legionnaire), wanna-be leader types who couldn't really lead if they tried (e.g. a Jack Sparrow knock-off, or (in 3e) a very low wisdom character with the Leadership feat), or free-thinkers to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word and the only counsel to which they will usually listen is their own.
> 
> ...




Sure, some folks live for that debate at the table. We don't. If we're going to get into an argument, it's going to be with an NPC or monster as part of a social interaction challenge. All a debate at the table between players does is stop forward progress in the game. 

A couple years ago, I invited some WotC forum folks to play in a text-based game with this approach and I shared the transcripts. The idea was to create examples of play. We would have 2-hour sessions every week on Roll20. A frequent comment from readers was that we got more done in those two hours than they got done in their 4 to 6 hours in-person games. And that was largely because the party was always moving in the same direction, getting to decisions faster, and working as a team. There were no arguments or debates to slow them down. We got a pretty big module done in 40 hours of play while typing instead of talking which is obviously inherently slower thanks, in part, to the approach I've described.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 4, 2018)

Its largely focused around what you prioritize.

 I played like two sessions once when invited into a super heroes rpg. First session started "outside the mall as police briefed heroes on the sitrep" before the foght started.

Seeing me a lityle confused, the one who invited me said "we just cut to the briefing right off. All that roleplaying stuff of being in your secret id when the alarm went off and who got here first... Slowed things down."

I gave it two sessions to confirm that was accurate then left politely.

Have seen groups where planning the fight was seen as "wasting time" and others where it was a core part of the play, etc.

I can see how "just roll thru disagreements and consider ir roleplaying" can serve well groups who prioritize getting thru content faster. 

Not my preference but thats fine. I am from the south so slow cooked flavor is second nature.


----------



## aramis erak (May 4, 2018)

> Whatever you say it does is what it does.



Big falsehood there. Making truth of it would read, "Whatever you say it does is what it attempts."

*Character success is*, in about 90% of games, entirely *out of the* individual *player's hands*. Even walking is up to the GM's decision... because there might be a sheen of hyper-slick ooze-slime that the PC didn't notice. Talking might be compromised by a bit of alum powder in the air or a silence spell.

The only area where the argument is valid is the character's "internal monologue"... and even then, most games have rules for imposing changes there.

The exceptions to the control limit of "attempt" tend to be storygames which are not also RPGs. Games like _Once Upon A Time_ and _Aye, Dark Overlord_. 

Apocalypse World is almost there, too - only the moves are mechanical; everything else is purely the narrating player's decision.

But those are exceptions. The general rule in RPGs, tho not stated as such in clear terms, "You only succeed when the GM chooses to let you, or goes to the dice and the dice let you."


----------



## iserith (May 5, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Big falsehood there. Making truth of it would read, "Whatever you say it does is what it attempts."




Sure. My point stands. The player is in control of what the character _attempts_, as you say.


----------



## Lanefan (May 5, 2018)

iserith said:


> If you really think about it, in any other approach someone's idea is always going to win out. It's just how long it takes to get to implementation. Sometimes you win the debate. Sometimes the guy or gal next to you does. The same outcome occurs here but without the debate which means you move forward faster.



Not necessarily.

Sometimes both win, meaning the party splits with some doing one thing/going one way and some another.

Sometimes neither win, because a third and more interesting/palatable option arose due to either someone's arbitrary action or the run-of-play discussion.



> I would say game with the people who are socialized according to one's tastes. I don't game with people who hog the spotlight or who are too shy to step up. We send those people to your game.



I play with friends I know from outside the game, and we (usually) accept each other's sometimes-lack of social skills as a simple fact of life.



> It's futile if changing minds is your goal.



Really?  What other possible reason for getting into a debate could there be?



> Your character _can't _think for itself. Or make any decisions. You do that for it. Whatever you say it does is what it does. Your concern would necessarily have to be that you don't like the constraint placed on YOU, not your character. And that's fair enough. For us, the benefits far outweigh the constraint placed on the players.



As long as you and your players are cool with giving up that agency (and, of course, that your players realize what they're giving up) then no problem. 

And otherwise you're needlessly splitting hairs here: if I'm playing a character who likes to think for itself (as opposed, say, to preferring to be told what to do; or being dull of mind and thus not up to much thinking) then I'm going to make sure it is played as thinking for itself.



> Sure, some folks live for that debate at the table. We don't. If we're going to get into an argument, it's going to be with an NPC or monster as part of a social interaction challenge. All a debate at the table between players does is stop forward progress in the game.



And are those social interaction challenges roleplayed all the way through, or are they also mechanically cut short?

Forward progress in the game is a fine goal, but there's all of life in which to accomplish it - it doesn't have to all be done tonight. 



> A couple years ago, I invited some WotC forum folks to play in a text-based game with this approach and I shared the transcripts. The idea was to create examples of play. We would have 2-hour sessions every week on Roll20. A frequent comment from readers was that we got more done in those two hours than they got done in their 4 to 6 hours in-person games. And that was largely because the party was always moving in the same direction, getting to decisions faster, and working as a team. There were no arguments or debates to slow them down. We got a pretty big module done in 40 hours of play while typing instead of talking which is obviously inherently slower thanks, in part, to the approach I've described.



No doubt this was in part due to those players' expressly giving up their agency to debate or argue against what someone else decided to do.

I'm not always much of a one for player rights or entitlement, but this is one agency you'd have to pry out of my cold dead hands.

Lan-"and sometimes more character development comes out of one successful argument where someone's mind is changed than from years of other play"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (May 5, 2018)

iserith said:


> Sure. My point stands. The player is in control of what the character _attempts_, as you say.



And with this I entirely agree.

It doesn't matter how (or even if) that attempt gets resolved - the fact of the player being in charge of declaring it and able within the system to declare it is enough.

Lan-"but note this principle applies - or should - just as much when players declare conflicting actions for their PCs, or actions which put their PCs in conflict"-efan


----------



## iserith (May 5, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Sometimes both win, meaning the party splits with some doing one thing/going one way and some another.
> 
> Sometimes neither win, because a third and more interesting/palatable option arose due to either someone's arbitrary action or the run-of-play discussion.




On the former, maybe so. On the latter, someone came up with that third option. But ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: You get your way sometimes. Other people get their way sometimes. Rather than debate, you move forward.



Lanefan said:


> Really?  What other possible reason for getting into a debate could there be?




As I've said several times now - for color.



Lanefan said:


> As long as you and your players are cool with giving up that agency (and, of course, that your players realize what they're giving up) then no problem.
> 
> And otherwise you're needlessly splitting hairs here: if I'm playing a character who likes to think for itself (as opposed, say, to preferring to be told what to do; or being dull of mind and thus not up to much thinking) then I'm going to make sure it is played as thinking for itself.




Enjoy your game-delaying debates then. We'll happily figure out a way to both play a character with strong opinions that also doesn't hold up forward progress.



Lanefan said:


> And are those social interaction challenges roleplayed all the way through, or are they also mechanically cut short?
> 
> Forward progress in the game is a fine goal, but there's all of life in which to accomplish it - it doesn't have to all be done tonight.




Life's too short to spend too much time arguing over what is usually a relatively pointless matter.

The social interaction challenges are over when the challenge is either won or lost as with any other challenge.



Lanefan said:


> No doubt this was in part due to those players' expressly giving up their agency to debate or argue against what someone else decided to do.
> 
> I'm not always much of a one for player rights or entitlement, but this is one agency you'd have to pry out of my cold dead hands.




I don't recall asking you to play in my game. So you're safe. For now.


----------



## Lanefan (May 5, 2018)

iserith said:


> On the former, maybe so. On the latter, someone came up with that third option. But ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: You get your way sometimes. Other people get their way sometimes. Rather than debate, you move forward.



Rather than move forward in a direction some might not want to go, you debate until a resolution arises even if it takes all night.

Clear majorities are one thing - the minority gets heard, majority rules, and on you go; leaving the minority behind if it comes to that.  But evenly-split debates are another thing, and need to be given all the time they require to resolve.



> As I've said several times now - for color.



Ok, allow me to rephrase: what other possible *relevant* reason for getting into a debate could there be?  If I've no hope of changing someone's mind due to an arbitrary external rule, why would I ever bother?  Colour is not a relevant reason.



> Enjoy your game-delaying debates then. We'll happily figure out a way to both play a character with strong opinions that also doesn't hold up forward progress.



Fine until those strong opinions clash, at which point either the system gives way or someone's characterization does.



> Life's too short to spend too much time arguing over what is usually a relatively pointless matter.



It's a known thing that the most trivial parts of any adventure often take the greatest amount of time.  Embrace it! 



> The social interaction challenges are over when the challenge is either won or lost as with any other challenge.



So, mechanically cut short, then; rather than roleplayed through to their conclusion? (as you may have seen in other threads, I have a very low opinion regarding the use of mechanics to resolve things that can be roleplayed through in person at the table)



> I don't recall asking you to play in my game. So you're safe. For now.



For now. 

Lanefan


----------



## iserith (May 5, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Rather than move forward in a direction some might not want to go, you debate until a resolution arises even if it takes all night.
> 
> Clear majorities are one thing - the minority gets heard, majority rules, and on you go; leaving the minority behind if it comes to that.  But evenly-split debates are another thing, and need to be given all the time they require to resolve.




Where is that written?



Lanefan said:


> Ok, allow me to rephrase: what other possible *relevant* reason for getting into a debate could there be?  If I've no hope of changing someone's mind due to an arbitrary external rule, why would I ever bother?  Colour is not a relevant reason.




And where is that written?



Lanefan said:


> Fine until those strong opinions clash, at which point either the system gives way or someone's characterization does.




There's no clashing under this approach.



Lanefan said:


> So, mechanically cut short, then; rather than roleplayed through to their conclusion? (as you may have seen in other threads, I have a very low opinion regarding the use of mechanics to resolve things that can be roleplayed through in person at the table)




Mechanics come into play as appropriate to the game.

I've been answering questions and handling objections on forums with regard to this topic for about 8 years now. It's always the same tired stuff usually from a given subset of posters on a given forum, sometimes the same people on multiple forums. All the while, I've been inviting a lot of posters to my one-shots and campaigns. If my Roll20 stats are to be believed, it's somewhere over 500 people, most of whom have never played with such an approach, some of whom objected to it previously. Here's what they say: "Oh, that was it? I hardly noticed it. But we sure did get a lot done and I had a blast."


----------



## 5ekyu (May 5, 2018)

Just an observation... For me and my group, we dont see discussions, debates and interaction between pcs as "game delaying". 

We see them as "game playing."

We also see the characters working out "how we work things out" in character as very useful and usually enjoyable as working thru internal issues is as much an element of advancement or accomplishment as any of the external  objectives with greater net gains in many cases. 

I think a key difference is, to me and mine, once the "how we work togethers" get worked thru, it usually becomes a thing of the past and future "game delaying debates" dont happen and become just planning.

On the other hand it seems the dice off and sometimes you win sometime i win actually depends on it continuing to happen over and over so that the wins and losses play out to get rhe "sometimes you, sometimes me".


----------



## aramis erak (May 6, 2018)

iserith said:


> Where is that written?
> 
> 
> 
> And where is that written?




Both can be found in general social skills training in elementary school. They're fundamental principles of US society as indoctrinated in the public schools.

Both the principle of democratic process, and debate is taught as an attempt to convince the audience, and the means of public discourse for "civilized Americans."

Both are also supposedly part of the UK culture as well. At least, US history as in the majority of elementary and secondary texts teaches that we inherited those principles from the UK prior to telling HRM George III to do bugger off.

I'd say they're just shy of self-evident as natural law, as well. Even dictators can only push so far before someone removes them from office by kinetic energy dump or poison.

To answer Pemerton: 

I've found that, the moment both players become personally invested in the debate, rather than invested on behalf of the character, it's time for a mechanical resolution.


----------



## Sadras (May 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In my main 4e game (which has been on hold for most of a year while one member of the group renovates his house), the PCs' amibtion is to make it the case that the time of the Dusk War has not yet come. Yet one PC is also committed to assembling the Rod of Seven Parts, even though it is known that this is a harbinger of the Dusk War. And most of the PCs are opposed to reformulating the Lattice of Heaven, but (i) help with the assembling of the Rod, which will then allow the Lattice of Heaven to be rebuilt, and (ii) keep doing things that further the interests of the Raven Queen, although that also seems to be about helping her re-establishe the Lattice of Heaven with her as the ruler of the cosmos.
> 
> These conflicts between hopes and actions, with interweave with discordant goals among the PCs, could well lead to failure.




I do like this idea about the Rod of 7 Parts being prophecised to being a harbringer of something bad, I might have to steal it.  Our table is getting close to the second part but they have not as yet figured out exactly what it is.

I agree, the instances you listed were all equivalent of failure. 



> I have posted about using a particular mechanical method to _reach a paeticular compromise_ - do we go to place X next, or to place Y. Some posters have treated this as (more-or-less) equivalent to - do we do thing A, or thing B; where things A and B are understood as extended over some period of time.
> 
> This makes sense if one assumes that place X is where thing A is going to happen, and place Y is where thing B is going to happen. But if that assumption doesn't hold, then nor does the equivalence.
> 
> In the sort of game I run, the assumption doesn't hold. Place X is different from place Y, and so offers different opportunities for players to declare actions (eg you can declare different actions in the Abyss compared to the Underdark). But there is no concern that X means some pre-determined A which is different from the B the compromising PC (and player) may have wanted to pursue. Even in place X, stuff is still going to happen that speaks to that PC (it will just be Abyssal stuff rather than Underdark-y stuff).




This appears to makes X and Y choices for colour only as A + B can both be accomplished in either destination. Who comes up with X and Y?


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2018)

Sadras said:


> This appears to makes X and Y choices for colour only as A + B can both be accomplished in either destination. Who comes up with X and Y?



I wouldn't say "colour only".

In my 4e game, if I'm recalling correctly, X was going into the Underdark to find and destroy Torog's Soul Abattoir, and Y was going to the Abyss to the beseiged fortress of Mal Arundak. I think the paladin of the Raven Queen was the main advocate for X, the invoker/wizard the maink advocate for Y. The possibility of X - ie that Torog has a Soul Abattoir in the Underdark - was established relatively early in the campaign (ie some time in Heroic Tier) because when the PCs reached 11th level and the paladin took on the Questing Knight paragon path, the player knew (in the sense of _chose_, with the feeling that there was on other choice) that his PC's quest was to destroy the Soul Abattoir. As far as I know the only mention of the Soul Abattoir is in the Underdark hardback, so I would have intoduced it into play having read that book.

Mal Arundak is described in The Plane Below. It was introduced into play much later - I can't remember how, but it would have been something that was told to the invoker/wizard, maybe connected to backstory around Miska the Wolf-Spider.

When the PCs agree to go to Mal Arundak rather than the Soul Abattoir (as resolved at the table via an opposed check between the two sides), they are determining that the next little while of play will involve Abyssal stuff rather than Underdark-y stuff. So it won't be possible to destroy the Soul Abattoir. But because of the way the game is being run, I'm still going to be establishing situations that engage the paladin: on the Abyss the paladin (together with the other PCs) was attacked by his rival Ometh, and this resulted in a subsequent crisis that called the party from Mal Arundak back to the mortal world.


----------



## aramis erak (May 8, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Just an observation... For me and my group, we dont see discussions, debates and interaction between pcs as "game delaying".
> 
> We see them as "game playing."
> 
> ...




The way it is written in Burning Wheel, if it affects a character sheet, it needs a roll. 

That's not how I run, tho'. I go to the dice PVP when...

Everyone else is bored
It's become personal to either player
Someone wants experience for it. (in games like Pendragon or BRP)
Either player requests it.

Failing to follow through with what the roll indicates gets an XP penalty in games that use it. In games that don't (like BRP, Pendragon), social pressure usually is enough, and when it's not, i've been known to bounce players.

GM v Players, if the rules don't explicitly specify difference for PC vs NPC, I'll use it with the specified rolls, possibly inverted so the player may make the roll.

The BW approach is useful, tho', when time is of the essence - short sessions, or late in session. But in BW, it's also important for the roll to be present - the roll is what earns the experience check. Oh, and in BW, you can give a help die to your opponent...

Duel of Wits is for major stuff. A simple opposed roll is the standard in BW for the little stuff. BW is built for PVP.


----------



## Sadras (May 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I wouldn't say "colour only".
> 
> In my 4e game, if I'm recalling correctly, X was going into the Underdark to find and destroy Torog's Soul Abattoir, and Y was going to the Abyss to the beseiged fortress of Mal Arundak. I think the paladin of the Raven Queen was the main advocate for X, the invoker/wizard the maink advocate for Y.




You initially described X and Y locations are not necessarily do A and B respectively. But your above example reflects that it is just that. Go to X (Underdark) to do A (destroy the Soul Abattoir), go to Y (Abyss) to do B (backstory at Mal Arundak).


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I have posted about using a particular mechanical method to _reach a paeticular compromise_ - do we go to place X next, or to place Y. Some posters have treated this as (more-or-less) equivalent to - do we do thing A, or thing B; where things A and B are understood as extended over some period of time.
> 
> This makes sense if one assumes that place X is where thing A is going to happen, and place Y is where thing B is going to happen. But if that assumption doesn't hold, then nor does the equivalence.
> 
> In the sort of game I run, the assumption doesn't hold. Place X is different from place Y, and so offers different opportunities for players to declare actions (eg you can declare different actions in the Abyss compared to the Underdark). But there is no concern that X means some pre-determined A which is different from the B the compromising PC (and player) may have wanted to pursue. Even in place X, stuff is still going to happen that speaks to that PC (it will just be Abyssal stuff rather than Underdark-y stuff).





Sadras said:


> You initially described X and Y locations are not necessarily do A and B respectively. But your above example reflects that it is just that. Go to X (Underdark) to do A (destroy the Soul Abattoir), go to Y (Abyss) to do B (backstory at Mal Arundak).



Go to Y (Abyss) and confront Ometh (thereby freeing the Raven Queen from blackmail) and find the lost tomb of King Elidyr. Go to X (Underdark) and meet devils who serve Levistus.

Even in place X, stuff is still going to happen that speaks to the invoker/wizard PC. Even in place Y, stuff is still going to happen that speaks to the paladin of the Raven Queen.

Whether the PCs go to the Abyss or the Underdark, there is no single predetermined thing that is happening, that will orphan the other PCs (and players) from their particular concerns. I think this is a real thing that makes dicing for compromise easier to take.


----------



## Sadras (May 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Go to Y (Abyss) and confront Ometh (thereby freeing the Raven Queen from blackmail) and find the lost tomb of King Elidyr. Go to X (Underdark) and meet devils who serve Levistus.
> 
> Even in place X, stuff is still going to happen that speaks to the invoker/wizard PC. Even in place Y, stuff is still going to happen that speaks to the paladin of the Raven Queen.
> 
> Whether the PCs go to the Abyss or the Underdark, there is no single predetermined thing that is happening, that will orphan the other PCs (and players) from their particular concerns. I think this is a real thing that makes dicing for compromise easier to take.




Who raises goals C (confronting Ometh) + D (meet the devils who serve Levistus)?
Are they raised when dicing for compromise is required?

Primary goals A + B are established in play by both player and DM 
If I understand correctly:
Given that you describe your games as player-driven that the Story is created by the players on successful checks.
When they fail a SC, that allows you to push/direct the Story. So I imagine A + B would have only been created by you (as DM) when the PCs failed a check.


----------



## Sadras (May 8, 2018)

ignore


----------

