Thoughts on Duel of Wits / Social Skills and Player Control

Burning Wheel First Reading
22

Yeah, I agree this is a benefit. The only comment I have here is that I think if the GM thinks a player is missing an option or tactic their character should reasonably think of because of their high Will or Perception or whatever, then they should probably let the player know :smiley: . That along with simple skill checks vs NPCs aren’t a perfect solution maybe but they’re a start. Obviously debate between PCs won’t really be properly modeled based on character stats if you never roll Persuasion or whatever and that’s unfortunate, but it’s something I’m willing to go without since I think each player should be able to control how compelling their PC finds a given argument.

As I tried to explain in the OP, no I don’t think a player should be able to do something like that. I’m not here to just say “the character should always be able to do exactly what the player wants.” I wouldn’t be playing an RPG if I never wanted to roll the dice :smile: . My concern is specifically with the player’s control over their character’s conscious mind. So, while a person can control what exactly what they say in response to being asked to go walk into that cave over there, they cannot necessarily stop a person from grabbing them, tying them up and carrying them into that cave over there!

Of course, realistically if a person is rhetorically skilled enough they have a chance of wrapping someone around their finger in a conversation, and more or less getting them to say or agree to things that they wouldn’t if the case were stated differently. This is definitely something DoW could simulate when it removes a player’s exact control of their character’s decision making process. However, I personally value the player’s agency over their character’s mind more than the ability to accurately represent the ability of an NPC to sweet talk a PC without exactly lying to them, and changing their mind that way. If the player is interested obviously they can choose to go along with it.

So what I’m trying to make clear is that yes I understand that the line I’ve drawn between conscious decision making and everything else isn’t one that can be drawn purely objectively. It’s not 100% clear cut because really the mind is part of the body, and people can be manipulated. But still I find that in order to be able to really inhabit my character in a game, it makes sense to me to have control of their decision making in the way I described. It’s mainly a matter of wanting to act like I am the character I’m playing rather than just directing their general goals from a bit of a distance.

I hope this makes sense, I know there’s a lot of subjective arguments I’m using here but I’m trying my best to be as specific as I can be!

Edit: Most importantly, I’m not trying to say that preference is the superior way to play or anything. It’s just what makes sense for me based on what I (think I) want out of an RPG experience :smile: . I can understand other players not having the same qualms I do.

23

Nah, I just mean in the game. Why put my agency at risk if you won’t do the same, ya know?

2 Likes
24

I think that you’re arguing essentially a non-issue.

First, it’s generally not appropriate for an NPC to roll a simple test against a PC. The rules about when to test and why to test make it clear that tests are the PCs bailiwick and the way that they get to exert control over the story at dramatic inflection points. Other discussion on this forum regarding NPCs and social tests, especially answers from our Fell Ancient, @luke, support the loop of the world moving, the PCs just doing non-dramatic things, and the discussion continuing until a player says, ‘I want this and this is what my PC is gonna do about it.’ Then the dice hit the table. In other words, if an NPC is rolling, it’s because the player chose to initiate something and that NPC is involved.

Second, social tests and the Duel of Wits cannot force you or your PC to do something that you have not already agreed to. If another player (GM included) says, “Hey, my character wants to Persuade your character to <thing your PC is presently opposed to>.” You can say, “They’ll never agree to that.” The reason why the Walking Away rules specify that once you’ve done this, there can’t be any further discussion with you is essentially the Let It Ride rules; It’s as if they’ve tested already and failed. If the situation changes or perhaps if they make a significant alteration to their Intent, you can try it then. You have to opt in to another character testing to influence you.

Third, Burning Wheel is a game where consequences are incontrovertible. It is exactly the same ethos that applies Let It Ride to a failed Stealthy test that demands that once you have opted in, you accept the consequences. If you step in front of the court knowing that if you lose the Duel of Wits the Duke will do nothing to stop your brother being executed at dawn, you’ve decided to stake that. This doesn’t mean that your or your character’s agency has been overwritten by another character’s will. You entered the contract willing.

Fourth, while you do have to abide by the contracts you agree to in play, nothing is preventing you from setting terms that give you the room you need; In the example above, you may have agreed that no one will officially stop your brother’s execution, but there’s nothing stopping you from trying anyway. You could murder the hangman to buy time; you could convince the bailiff to let him free; you could break in yourself; you could stand up on the gallows, hold the hangman at sword point, and appeal to the crowd instead.

Fifth, you’re playing a game with real people. The only reason you’re doing this is to have fun. Sure, bad things will happen to your character, they might find themselves powerless against the social prowess of others, they might be cowed into doing things they don’t want to do, but you will have decided that, because you’re a person in a collaboration. Talk to your GM, set up an X-Card or other safety tools or just open the door to saying, “I don’t want play to go this way; let’s do something else.”

Thanks for sharing your opinions on Duel of Wits and social skills. The discussion has been stimulating. If I still haven’t changed your mind in any way, well, at least you’ve played the example of refusing a social skill test or Duel of Wits. You did state initially, after all, that you weren’t here to have your mind changed.

And on another note, I hope you really engage social skills and DoW in Burning Wheel anyway, because it’s very much how Vincent Baker put it in his series of using Apocalypse World as a design pattern, “That’s cool. You’re missing out, but the hub and spokes still work.”

3 Likes
25

I think these are good points, especially point 5 (I was already aware NPCs don’t roll social skills at PCs on their own), though I’ll just make a couple comments. I don’t think I’d have a problem with the only outcome of a duel of wits being that the king doesn’t do what I want him to, my concern was specifically with a Duel of Wits that locks the PC into a course of action. So like the example Luke gave of “if you lose you agree to go find an army for the Empress.” That’s the sort of thing I don’t have an interest in using a duel of wits for. So it’s not that I’d never want to use the DoW rules but that I would want to be selective about it. Walking away similarly feels forced to me. Essentially I’m not allowed to want anything from an NPC that wants something from me unless I’m willing to enter a DoW where the dice might have me agreeing to help them without my say-so :smiley: . It really depends on whether what the NPC wants is something I’d want to do for them anyway.

At the moment though, I don’t have the time to say anything more detailed.

Final Edit (I hope): to put it another way, you point out I have to opt in to letting another character influence me, but my concern is if I opt out, I’m also opting out of really being able to come to any agreement in the scene. Now, if all of the NPC’s arguments are laid out beforehand so I already know whether or not my PC would agree then that would fix the issue without necessarily requiring a duel of wits (I suppose the GM could still push for one to get the NPC to agree to a compromise if I decide that’s what I want). I think it’s a situation I’d have to see play out to form a better opinion on. Maybe in a situation where I go in wanting to compromise then a DoW would be a fun way to settle exactly how much I do :stuck_out_tongue: I’m not sure I’m being super clear at the moment, so if this post hasn’t been the most helpful that’s on me I think.

On the other hand, maybe some day I’ll be in a situation where I’ll be invited to play with a larger group and I’ll have to give having a bit more distance from my character a shot. Looks like it could be fun, but I’m not really looking for that at the moment. My initial statement about not wanting my mind changed was more so to avoid debating whether it “makes sense” for me to want control over my character’s decision making in the way I described. No one here has argued that though. I’m sure my tastes will continue to change as time passes.

1 Like
26

Avoiding the need for this is one of the reasons I really like the concept of DoW. Having done court cases that take more than a day and negotiations that make those look rushed for work, I don’t necessarily want to play out every IC negotiation for fun; and even if I am in the mood, I don’t want to force the other players to sit there for the entire session while the GM and I do a real-time negotiation.

If you replace “escalate to violence” with “agree not to agree” you could do that. DoW defines what each side ideally wants and results in how much each side will have to compromise to get an agreement, so if you have an exit condition that doesn’t involve violence, you’ve got a system that says “if you want a deal with this person, you’ll have to compromise slightly/reasonably/a lot”. Then you have the choice of taking the deal or using an approach that isn’t getting an agreement.

1 Like
27

I really appreciate your response and I think I get where you’re coming from more now too. Point 5 is really the game changer and, luckily, you’ve got just one other person in the team, so you can really build trust and talk things through!

1 Like
28

There is definitely a line to walk there. I don’t want to be spending all day on a single conversation either! So DoW does seem like a good way of expediting the process.

If I’m reading you right, you basically mean adding the option to Walk Away after the DoW? Obviously there might be consequences for having wasted, say, a monarch’s time but I think you could say the same about walking away before a DoW :smiley: . Really this seems like the perfect solution to my problem. Play out the DoW (which gets both character’s arguments stated), and the Body of Argument is more your ability to keep going in the face of your opponent’s force of personality. Then when it’s over you will look at the level of compromise required and both parties decide if they’re going to come to an agreement (so apply the DoW results RAW) or Agree to Disagree (the results don’t bind anyone, but also the person you’re talking to might be mad you wasted their time or refused them if they’re your social better). This sounds like a fun way to get to use these mechanics to me.

Now, I recognize this is going against the intention of the DoW system in that you’re not “letting the result ride” necessarily but I think it’d be an elegant change (for what I want out of this part of the Rim) none the less. Not sure why I didn’t consider it before; maybe it was because of how much emphasis the rules place on the results being binding. And finally, making the result non-binding does make DoW less useful for resolving conflicts between players, although it can at least shorten the argument down to 1 DoW even if the players don’t accept a compromise at the end. I think I’m ok with that too though.

29

First, I want to say, somewhat in line with Luke above, that if you have preferences that are incompatible with playing Burning Wheel, then you should not play some hacked version of it. Burning Wheel is very connected and will fight you in unexpected places if you don’t use it as is. Play something else.

However, perhaps you should turn around and look at the benefit of social skills and DoW in BW. Imagine if your character made an argument to another player’s character, either PC or NPC, and just refuses to budge. Won’t give in, no matter what. Do you really want the fiction stuck in this deadlock? Or would you like a way to move forward? Use DoW, by doing so you both agree that you are open to change the status quo. True, you might agree to do something (and note, the agreements are about actions, not internal belief) that you’d rather not, but you could also get your way, where before it was impossible! Isn’t that great? Doesn’t this sound like an interesting dynamic game?

Anyways, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

30

I’m glad I was able to get my point across then :smiley: . Also it seems what you brought up got @DaveHiggins to make a really good suggestion for a house rule (in my opinion). I should reiterate that none of this is to say that I think the game needs to be changed officially (obviously the game has a following as is, and it’s entirely BWHQ’s vision), and I appreciate the comments!

1 Like
31

Do you have any specific mechanical concerns with the houserule I suggested in my post above yours? Otherwise, just telling me to not play a game I want to try playing feels a bit silly. If I play and don’t have fun, I’ll stop. Simple as that.

As I’ve mentioned before, DoW does seem useful for resolving deadlocks like this, but that benefit I don’t think is enough for me to want to give control over my PC necessarily. Maybe situationally (I think I’ve talked about this a bit more in a previous post but maybe I’m mistaken).

32

Hey Aelveidra, I know this thread is getting kind of long, and I hope you’re not feeling like it’s getting too preachy. I just wanted to share my thoughts as someone who once held a gaming philosophy very close to yours regarding player control over a character’s thoughts. I actually turned away from Burning Wheel a while ago in part because I was looking for a game that would better reflect my playstyle, in which a character was an opportunity for me, the player, to take on imagination and decision-making in a new context—in a real sense, I thought of my character -as me- (i.e. it made no sense to think of my character doing something I didn’t want them to do, because their will was literally a subset of my own).

Burning Wheel does in fact ask you to take a different stance towards your character than this, a fact which comes into starkest relied in DoW, but also in other areas. I believe that the character-philosophy I had stemmed in part from a sort of problem-solving, like most verbalized philosophies do. The problem I was trying to solve was something like a matter of player-rights vs. GM-rights, which came up largely due to the somewhat adversarial nature of a lot of RPGs, in which players are trying to either work within the GM’s established story, or trying to overcome its bounds. In my experience, the power of the GM can make players very protective of the agency they have over their characters, and it becomes a sacrosanct part of a game.

Burning Wheel tries to buck this semi-competetive mindset, by making the bounds of the game both -very- clear in terms of what rules and options are available for player and GM, but also by making the setting and action intrinsically collaborative (players’ beliefs determine the direction of the plot).

But more than this, the -point- of BW (as far as I can see) is to -discover- things about your character—to think of your character as a semi-real entity over whom you have some control, but are also in part a loving observer. The interaction between GM and player is to push these characters to the limit, and -find out- what they’re made of, in a way that is very difficult to do when the character’s internal states are synonymous with your own. The thrill of a Duel of Wits is in part the excitement of finding out whether your character, when confronted with opposition, will bend, break, or stand strong. The dice become tools of exploration and discovery, rather than cruel and arbitrary hands of fate.

All this is just to say—you’re obviously free to play your games as you like. Just know that you don’t need to be afraid of giving up some control—some outrageously cool things can happen when a character takes on a life of their own, and the excitement of rolling the dice and knowing that come what may, the results are going to -stick- and define the game going forward, is worth a lot. There is a trust that has to exist in these games, for sure, but a DoW shouldn’t feel like a grab for agency or power, it should feel like a natural extension of story and characters. Even if you decide to keep playing with you DoW mod, I do suggest giving the standard rules an honest try, and see if your character might surprise you.

3 Likes
33

I don’t have time right now to make too extensive of a response, but maybe it’s better to try and keep my thoughts concise here anyway.

Edit: I don’t mean to be dismissive, so I apologize if I do come off that way at any point. Just a bit pressed for time right now.

Yes, I think my desire to “be the character” is similar to what you described, though I think for me it’s less a matter of the adversarial nature of some RPGs and more a matter of wanting to be able to express a character as I see fit (the PC as a form of self expression maybe). Thinking about a character’s personal views and internal thoughts is a lot of fun, including thinking about how they would act when their beliefs are challenged.

You describe BW as a discovery process; I just want that discovery process (when it relates to the character’s internal thoughts) to be a result of how I think about the character rather than a result of the dice.

The player can still decide whether their character bends, breaks, or stands strong. The DoW (even if non binding) will provide the player with a mechanical sense for how the scene is going for their character and (I hope) give the decision more weight, but what a character decides to do or think I still would like control over in order to express the character in a way that makes sense to me.

I don’t think that a character taking on a life of their own and you having control over them are fully mutually exclusive, though I assume it’s more pronounced when the dice play a immutable role in directing the character’s decisions and so on. I’m looking at it this way: you play the DoW, set out the compromise you could reach and then if that sounds fun and like something it makes sense for the character to agree to then go with it. If not, don’t. I will be essentially playing the standard rules except for that option to back off at the end, so hopefully that’s close enough to get an idea of how BW is “supposed” to feel. :smiley:

Edit 2 (hours later): I do think the emphasis on collaboration in BW is interesting, but I would prefer it in addition to agency over my character rather than in place of it, I think. Also, I’m open to talking more if something I said brings anything up to you or if you think I missed something key in your post. This thread has, I think, been very interesting and has gotten me a better understanding of the spirit of the RAW for DoW and how other players approach it. Still, like I said before I’d prefer personally to try it out with the aforementioned house rule :smiley:

34

I don’t have any specific places where the game will break, that’s the point. Also, to be clear, you are planning to play something other than Burning Wheel, and it is that thing that I’m advising you against playing.

Guessing, though, I could see it break the Artha economy and advancement, amongst other things. If you can just ignore the result of a DoW, then you won’t have the same incentives when playing it. If I really care and know it counts, I may burn through Artha and ignore advancement. If you can discard the outcome, you can ignore that.

35

You bring up good points. You’d really have to throw out logged tests for advancement if you’re going to to leave walking away as an option, I think.

@Aelvreidra, you’d also want to make Agreeing to Disagree ride, I think. Once you decide to ignore your interlocutor, no going revisiting the topic until you get the result you want.

Also, does the GM get Agree to Disagree privileges too? If you blow my NPC out of the water, can I say, “They storm off and ignore you?” I feel like that would get pretty unfair pretty fast. On the other hand, if I can’t, then things are maybe one-sided in the player’s favor. Any ideas for squaring that circle?

1 Like
36

Hummm, this would probably make sense. Then there is some mechanical cost to leaving. I could see allowing the character to keep 1 test of your choice for advancement maybe.

Yes, this is what I was thinking too, though I didn’t make it clear. The DoW should, I think, still be a singular event, and just like if you walk away before it happens, if you Agree to Disagree afterward you need to stick with that decision unless something significant changes.

Well, I guess my basic instinct was to let the GM have NPCs walk away too, if it makes sense narratively for the NPC to do so. BW is a more collaborative game, and I guess I assume the GM has the responsibility to keep things fun for the players by not overusing that option. Also, unless I’m mistaken, NPCs can already Walk Away (or have the PCs Taken Away if they’re fancy) before a DoW, so the GM already has the opportunity to look at a PC and decide the NPC isn’t going to do anything for them. So in a similar way that the GM is expected to not hamstring the plot using this option, they would be expected to be cautious using the option to Agree to Disagree.

However, even RAW, BW does not treat PCs and NPCs symmetrically in social situations (for example, NPCs cannot really initiate social tests on PCs freely). Obviously I’ve not got any specific experience to go on in terms of a solution, but here are a couple ideas that come to mind if NPCs walking away becomes a major issue (I don’t think you’d use all of them at once):

  • The most simple, but least concrete answer here is to just make it a conversation between the GM and player(s) involved. The story is supposed to be a bit collaborative right? It might be that the GM can explain to the players why they think it makes sense for this NPC to Agree to Disagree, and not cause any hard feelings around the table. This doesn’t seem like the most reliable option though :stuck_out_tongue:
  • In a game with multiple players, in situations where it’s just 1 character’s Beliefs that are really at stake in this DoW, you could require a vote by the less-involved players to allow the GM to have the NPC to Agree to Disagree. This could be either majority or require a unanimous decision, not sure which would work better. This one isn’t super useful if the entire party is very invested in one DoW though.
  • The NPC must spend a Persona point to Agree to Disagree. This is imposing a barrier to NPCs that doesn’t exist for PCs of course, but it would help limit the storming off to major antagonists, and require a bit of conscious planning on the GM’s part to have a point around to do so (they can’t spend that Artha point in the DoW then).
  • The PC can attempt a test using their Body of Argument skill against an Ob of the NPC’s Will, with Advantage dice equal to their remaining Body of Argument points at the end of the DoW. If the test is successful, the NPC can’t Agree to Disagree. This is another asymmetrical barrier that exists for NPCs but not PCs, but it is in line with how NPCs can’t initiate social tests on PCs. Additionally, this allows the PC to invest Artha in this situation, letting the GM force the player to spend more to get what they want :smiley:
    • You could even allow the GM to impose an Ob penalty to this test based on the NPC’s social status relative to the PC, or other circumstances.
    • You could also allow the NPC to spend Artha (if they have it) to increase the Ob, allowing more important NPCs more PC-like autonomy.

Really, it seems like a matter of what would work for the table. A lot of what “works” seems like it’d depend on the disposition of the players and GM :smiley: . Personally, because I like crunch, that 4th point sounds fun. It offers the PC a chance to flex their skill to keep the NPC around, giving sort of a middle ground between “PCs can walk away, NPCs can’t” and “NPCs can always walk away.” However, in some situations I could see the GM and player(s) just talking it out and deciding how they want to advance the story here.

Edit: While these ideas do apply asymetrically to PCs and NPCs, the GM probably isn’t as concerned about having to throw out all those tests for Advancement for the NPC as the player is for their PC, so there is that as a potential balancing factor.

This was a fun thing to think about, so thanks for bringing it up :grin:

37

I’d say it’s limited by Consequences! Bom-bom-bom!

Much like “demanding satisfaction” after losing a duel, bystanders will know the winner was reasonable, so walking away will make the NPC seem unreasonable. Perhaps that won’t matter for all NPCs, but (for example) a king is likely to be balanced precariously among agreements with nobles so won’t want to damage their reputation for fair dealing (or their reputation for “always getting a good deal even if it might not seem like it”). So, many NPCs won’t want to walk away.

And if they do, then it creates a juicy political situation that the PC can use as the basis of their “negotiation didn’t work so I’ll do something different” strategy.

1 Like
38

No offence, but this rule is terrible. This will not be fun in practice, and removes all the stakes. You should either play with the rules or not use duel of wits. There is no reason to duel here, it sounds like you just want freeform roleplay, which is great and fun, but not burning wheel. But if you’re committed to BW, DoW is completely optional. You will have a better time just using the hub and spokes

2 Likes
39

No problem. I gotta say, I’m pretty firmly in the opposing camp, but other folks are making those arguments. I figure spitballing the best way for you to go about making bad decisions ( :stuck_out_tongue: ) is a better use of my time. I hope it all works out for you!

40

This is a good point I think. Depending on how much the GM leans into those social consequences when narrating the reactions of other characters this might be all you actually need. I think I’d like to just try this out first then add mechanical limitations as needed.

1 Like
41

Well, I appreciate you playing along, at least :smiley:
Like I said, I don’t expect you or anyone else here to necessarily try out the same rules but I do appreciate the suggestions/questions!