Player control of character behaviour

[Pelgrane]

As a result of a session we tried last week, the following question arises. Can the stakes of a conflict involve changing the mind of a PC against the wishes of the player?

This is the essence of the Dying Earth RPG - characters are persuaded to do things that the player knows are outstandingly bad ideas, but will have very funny consequences.

In Dogs, I assumed that this was also the case. A naive 16 year old dog was persuaded that a problem was caused by mountain men, when the player was 100% sure it was a problem caused by demons in the town.

So is this OK, or not? Always, only if player agrees to the stakes, never (player always gets to decide PCs views)?

Simon Rogers

[lumpley]

Was the player comfy with it?

-Vincent

[Pelgrane]

Was the player comfy with it?

-Vincent

Yes, he (I) was reasonably comfortable with it, but I know at least two players in the group who would definitely not have been.

[lumpley]

Cool. As you found, the rules totally support stakes that change the mind of the character - but they don't demand them. "What stakes are legit?" is one of those things your group needs to work out for itself. I recommend that you not discuss it up front - upfront discussions are poison - but instead, whenever it comes up, check out the players involved and see what they're comfy with. By the third session you'll have a pretty reliable (if unarticulated) standard.

It may well be a double standard, along the lines of "Simon's comfy with it so go ahead; Mitch is hesitant, but try him, maybe he'll rise to it; Vincent's conservative so always leave his character's opinions up to him." Who knows!

As GM, for the first few sessions at least, always have fallback stakes ready for if the player shows any resistance. "No, that's fine. How about, he wants you to agree to check out the Mountain People, whether you think it might be them or not, so that's what's at stake?"

-Vincent

[Pelgrane]

Thanks - that clears it up for me. There's a chance I might run a game this evening as Steve Dempsey is feeling under par. I'll take a look at the list of towns for something straightforward.

[Tim M Ralphs]

My own comfort level, as a GM, lies in what people do next. I wouldn't feel happy telling a player that their character now feels a certain way about something, but I am happy having taking an action as stakes.

I'll give an example to clarify, I ran a group through what I think is the last town from the book, with the fertility cult and the dead child. (Don't have it with me or I'd check, as I have a passing doubt that the town may have been contributed by players.)

We had a conflict over whether a despondent mother managed to persuade a Dog to dig up her un-named dead child and perform a naming ceremony. The Dog gave, and as a result the player had to go through with the action. But it is left up to the player to determine why their character did that, whether they think it's even allowed by the creed of the religion, whether they were comfortable doing it, whether they were sincere in what they did.

Going back to your example, I'd be happy with the stakes being: Do the Dogs go and check out the Mountain folk next? and I'd leave it up to the players to decide why their Dog would do that, as per Vincent's fall back stake comment above. Which is odd, because I'm always happy for the Dogs to change the minds of NPC characters as an implicit part of the stakes. One powerful conflicts that a player iniated involved a Dog persuading a person that they were a sinner and they deserved punishment. That poor girl went to the stake willingly.

[Pelgrane]

Going back to your example, I'd be happy with the stakes being: Do the Dogs go and check out the Mountain folk next? and I'd leave it up to the players to decide why their Dog would do that, as per Vincent's fall back stake comment above. Which is odd, because I'm always happy for the Dogs to change the minds of NPC characters as an implicit part of the stakes. One powerful conflicts that a player iniated involved a Dog persuading a person that they were a sinner and they deserved punishment. That poor girl went to the stake willingly.

I don't think it's odd at all.

Some players feel uncomfortable if a conflict is telling them how their character thinks. It's to do with the identification between the player and the character, or the player's interpretation of their character, but in the end, it's the player's control of their character which is the main issue. This is one of the reasons that a small number of people actively disliked Dying Earth - they don't want to "go with the flow" when it comes to character control.

NPCs are in a fundamental way different to PCs - really they are just the Game Master talking, and so different rules apply. In fact, an asymetrical description of PCs and GMCs is at the heart of the GUMSHOE system Robin has been working on. The only characteristic that count with these NPCs is their player-facing ones - how they react to what the PCs do. We offload as many system choices onto the PCs as possible. For example, a PC might be able to simply spend to points to intimidate a particular NPC, whereas the other way round it would be impossible. Rather than an NPC detecting a lie, the PC will succeed in an impersonate.

Two of my group would be happy with having their characters' minds changed, the others wouldn't. Your method (agree to actions) is more consistent between players, but I'll probably try out both ways to see what works best.

In the game I mentioned in the first post, the demons almost certainly got what they wanted mainly due to the original lost conflict, but thanks to Vincent's answer to my previous thread this was in no way a problem.  The older Dog (played by player new to DitV) was completely out of his depth in a good way as my character wholeheartedly went along with him even though I knew it was a bad idea.

[lumpley]

Simon, I think you've nailed it, good post. Some of the people I play with are uncomfortable having anyone tell them anything about their characters' inner lives; others are open to it. "Actions only" works fine for everyone, but doesn't fulfill the potential of the game for the latter group.

-Vincent

[cydmab]

Who sets (or has final authority) on stakes? I thought it was players, with the GM aggressively recomending/urging/counseling changes? Did I misread the rules? Does the GM have final say on stakes? Or does it require universal consensus? Or is this something that varies from group to group?

The only time this could be a problem is if the GM has final authority on stakes. Otherwise, a player could just veto any stakes they aren't comfortable with (such as stakes dictating PC action), no?

[lumpley]

The group has final authority over stakes, but that's not the same thing as "we vote" or "everyone has to like it, anyone can veto." Especially, there's no such thing as "just" vetoing another player's input. Vetoing another player's input usually has a social cost, and always has a game-procedural cost. Same as imposing your own input like-it-or-lump-it.

Since the GM's a full and active participant in all stakes-setting, she carries more responsibility for learning how to set stakes well than any other individual player.

-Vincent

[GB Steve]

The issue of what the stakes mean is a thorny one.

In one game I ran we rather foundered towards the end of one conflict when a player realised that she had agreed to stakes that meant her character would have to go along with something that she (the player) saw her PC as fundamentally opposed to.

Fortunately this happened towards the end of the game but I think what it showed me is that I have to make players more aware of this issue, particularly Dogs newbs. Of course, I haven't ever done this and the problem has never arisen since but it has the potential to spoil a game.

I think one reason that don't like to talk too much about the careful consideration of stakes (apart from forgetfulness) is because I don't want it to be an issue in the game. With some of the more gamist players, they would view this as a challenge, to think up the wording that would be most in their favour. I'd rather they just had the consequences of their actions to deal with instead of it being a game of legal challenges.

I think, as Vincent suggests, that dealing with these issues as they arise works fine in a series of Dogs games but I've only ever played one offs.