Thoughts on Duel of Wits / Social Skills and Player Control

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Should probably also consider the parallel rule change that when any die roll turns out in a way that would hamper you, the character’s player, from expressing yourself through the character as you would wish, you may decide to ignore the results and substitute a different outcome. Duels of Wits aren’t particularly special - you can play the game without them, and still have mechanics adjudicating the same situation which may have used a DoW! So those mechanics should also be subject to the “disregard; I do what I want” house rule.

I mean this is fairly obvious, or should be, but best to let your GM know explicitly in advance, so there’s no expectation mismatch in-the-moment.

[technomonkey]

@GreedyAlgorithm, the thing is, the game already provides a way to avoid any result that a player doesn’t like: decline to test once the consequences of failure are announced. This is not different than in DoW, where you know at the beginning whether you could accept what the other side is going for. I don’t see the point in adding the ability make the decision again after rolling the dice. It allows players to fight for their Beliefs without fear of consequence, which is contradictory to the philosophy of the game.

[Aelvreidra]

Yeah, this would be something to think about for simple versus social tests, depending on the stakes set up before the roll. Definitely something to keep in mind, thought I imagine more realistically we just won’t set stakes for vs tests that would be disagreeable in the first place? If it’s not a big enough deal to be a full DoW then it might just be better to resolve whatever the NPC is trying to get the PC to do through freeform RP.

[Aelvreidra]

Yeah, I suppose a lot of the time by the time a DoW happens you will have already told the NPC in the preceeding scene what you want from them, and if they’re not willing to agree to that without you doing something you’re not willing to do, then it makes sense to walk away before the DoW. Like I said before:

@Aelvreidra

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).

But a DoW still seems like it could be fun to play out in some cases even if you’re not sure you’ll be willing to stick with the result. I don’t feel like I need every die roll to be a big deal to have fun rolling the dice

Edit: As @DaveHiggins pointed out, there still are likely to be consequences to walking away after a DoW too. It’s not that the conversation never happened, it’s that you talked and did your best to convince each other, but in the end one side just still could not find compromise possible. This can still have implications on how the winner of the DoW, and anyone else who saw what happened, will treat the one who walked away, it’s just that the loser still refused to agree to do what the winner wanted them to agree to do.

[helstadt]

If you just want to roll dice with no consequences, there are a lot of games that support that mode of play (D&D for example). The most important thing about Burning Wheel mechanically is that every roll matters. If the rolls don’t matter, you’re not playing Burning Wheel, you’re playing a game that looks like Burning Wheel but lacks the core driving mechanical force

[Why]

Right so, having read through this thread, and seen Luke’s responses, I have some thoughts:

Luke’s example with the Empress seems to have really irked you for some reason, and you’ve come up with this “get-out-of-jail” option for Duels of Wits you’re calling “Agree to Disagree”.

If i start by talking about the example Luke gave in more detail, you might get what’s trying to be said, but instead let me start with this: “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it”.

In the example of the Duel of Wits versus the Empress, imagine this: your brother is rumoured to have committed some act against the Throne, you believe that he is innocent, and you have led to the point where you get to enter into her Throne Room and plead your case. You go in, and tell the Empress “My Brother is Innocent, these rumours are baseless, formally absolve him and restore his petition”, to which she replies “He is working with others against me, all conspirators are to be moved against, the loyal will act on my behalf to do this”.

In your perfect example, in any roleplaying game, what would happen next here? Would you make roll for your PC to convince, and then it’d be done? Would you just roleplay out the scene with the social contract taking the reins? Would your character ever be convinceable to betray his brother? What if he also believed that the Empress was kind and merciful, or fair and just?

Next, how would that map to Burning Wheel? If you want a roll to convince, what would go wrong on a failure?

In Burning Wheel, what happens is a Duel of Wits. There’s a point just now where maybe you could withdraw, make excuses, walk away. The Empress could have ordered the guards to escort you away already, but she hasn’t, and she is bound by these rules.

You make tests against each other. You hope to win without compromise, but perhaps you lose. Either way, the entire game is going to turn on this monumental scene. If you win, somehow, despite the Vizier’s Help and the Empress’ FoRKing, you will have saved your brother. If you lose, you have promised to attack your brother to prove your loyalty to the Empress. The compromises might be great: you convince her that your brother isn’t a threat, but his position cannot be restored without getting the other conspirators called to account. They might be minor: she agrees she will provide a small retinue of her own treasured warriors to aid you in your task. Either way, the outcome is monumental.

And your character was convinced, at least in part, because the dice say they are. That’s what those numbers mean.

And this is where I get to the part where I try and tell you what I dislike about your houserule, and it’s this “compromise is poison”. The ability to compromise those terms undercuts the drama. Even through insulting the Empress to her face, demanding satisfaction, and being told (convincingly, the dice say so) that the loyal would act on her behalf, your character has the option to leave unscathed? That undercuts the drama. And if it doesn’t, it transforms the scene, because the other response from the Empress is imprisonment.

Burning Wheel is at its best when what happens after that scene is that you become the player of a torn character. That you continue to love your brother, despite leading an army to bring him to the Empress’ mercy. That they pursue this quest hoping, just hoping, that when the situation is changed, when their brother sirs in front of the Empress and recants, she will grant you both mercy for pleading for a third path.

[Aelvreidra]

I had tried to lay out what exactly my issue was with this example, but since you expanded on it at length . . .

@Why

Luke’s example with the Empress seems to have really irked you for some reason, and you’ve come up with this “get-out-of-jail” option for Duels of Wits you’re calling “Agree to Disagree”.

It’a because it’s an example of the kind of thing I said I don’t really want out of a game in the OP I didn’t look for a different option just because of that example, it was just a pretty good example of the kind of situation I was already looking for a different option for.

@Why

In your perfect example, in any roleplaying game, what would happen next here? Would you make roll for your PC to convince, and then it’d be done? Would you just roleplay out the scene with the social contract taking the reins? Would your character ever be convinceable to betray his brother? What if he also believed that the Empress was kind and merciful, or fair and just?

In a game where we don’t have DoW, we’d RP, I’d make a roll (or several) to try and convince the queen. Like I keep saying, my issue is with player control over the character’s decisions, so the character could be convinced to betray their brother only if I decide they are. If my character believed the empress was kind/merciful or fair/just then that’d probably have to color how the character interprets the conversation, but again that’d be the player’s choice on how and to what degree.

@Why

Next, how would that map to Burning Wheel? If you want a roll to convince, what would go wrong on a failure?

I suppose that depends what the empress wanted to do with you, assuming you flat refuse to go along with what she wants. You could be told that really you have to do this or you’ll be killed, you could be told to leave, you could be imprisoned, etc.

@Why

If you lose, you have promised to attack your brother to prove your loyalty to the Empress.

To reiterate this is the part I was taking issue with.

@Why

And this is where I get to the part where I try and tell you what I dislike about your houserule, and it’s this “compromise is poison”. The ability to compromise those terms undercuts the drama. Even through insulting the Empress to her face, demanding satisfaction, and being told (convincingly, the dice say so) that the loyal would act on her behalf, your character has the option to leave unscathed? That undercuts the drama. And if it doesn’t, it transforms the scene, because the other response from the Empress is imprisonment.

Well probably not unscathed. But if the other option is imprisonment, yes, I feel like the character should be able to choose that if the player thinks it’s the appropriate response for the character. Also, if the character has respect for the empress (and, well, a good amount of self control) I would hope they avoided insulting her directly

@Why

Burning Wheel is at its best when what happens after that scene is that you become the player of a torn character.

I can certainly see how an unexpected outcome could lead the game in interesting directions, at least. But I’m still not entirely sure I want the dice making those decisions for me. I think by this point (between what everyone has said) I can see why I would want to try the game RAW, since I’ve gotten a better idea of what DoW is for in the story. However, I still really like the idea of an out after a DoW if the result is the sort of thing you described above. I guess I can repeat this:

@Aelvreidra

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.

[Why]

I didn’t think you came up with the other option because of the example, I just felt like it was a brilliant example to structure my discussion around.

Well probably not unscathed. But if the other option is imprisonment, yes, I feel like the character should be able to choose that if the player thinks it’s the appropriate response for the character.

The character is unscathed. Even in the imprisonment example, you’ve not had to experience vulnerability on the character’s behalf. Only the situation can be dfificult, their core is unassailed in your version.

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.

Right; first-off, I completely don’t want to come off like I’m telling you that you cannot play the game in the exact way you want to play it. But I’m telling you this: I would encourage you to experience the vulnerability that you are cutting out. Not for a long time, not all the time, not if you do not like it. But I wholeheartedly recommend you try it without. Not that you never come back to it, or even that you completely change your mind and enjoy it, but that you try it.

I think it’s pretty clear that you are seeing the player’s control of the character’s actions as core to your view of the game; you’ve said as much. I encourage you to openly engage of the experiment of taking that away in small ways. Of playing characters who can be convinced.

In the fiction of the gameworld, you already accept that your character’s stats and skills represent their ability to convince others, to hurt others, and to be hurt by others. It is a small step to accept that they also represent their ability to be convinced.

By giving up control over every one of the character’s beliefs (and Beliefs) at all times you open yourself up to telling greater stories. In my games, it’s extremely rare that I directly dictate a change of belief for the characters, but I do so when they open themselves up to it, and occasionally it’s used as an internal form of conflict resolution within the party.

The best stories involve the drama that comes when a character decides to act on something even when they were initially against it, when someone is moved to act in a new way. If you get everyone onside that such a thing can happen, before it happens, and you make it clear that it’s going to happen, there will be no bad blood. If everyone knows, walking into it, that it’s possible your argument with the Empress goes so badly that you agree to lead an army against your brother (not that you hate your brother, or you give up any hope for his innocence, but that you will be the one to bring him in) then the drama of the situation is astounding. Allowing space for rationalising but being clear in the outcome is important, but having your character’s core ideals be assailable is a vulnerability that adds spice to the game in a way I encourage you to try.

If it’s not for you, and your group, you’ve lost very little if you try it for a cycle. You’ll have learned that you dislike it, and you’ll probably be better at articulating why you dislike it. If you do, then you will have opened up the space for characters to be mislead, misguided, and convinced to act against their own interests and that will lead to some truly amazing moments.

[Aelvreidra]

Well, I’ll keep all this in mind. I think in some ways the unpredictability and drama sounds appealing, but at other times the lack of control over the character’s decisions just absolutely does not fun to me. I guess if I’m ever asked to play a larger game of BW (I don’t have a set group right now that’s interested in the game) I’ll keep what you’ve said here in mind.
Edit: I think really I’d have to go into the game making a character I don’t care as much about. I’ll be less concerned with my agency over the character if I’m not as invested in them as a person.

I’m not really able (or willing, in a public setting like this) to say anything more concrete than that

I do appreciate the comments though!

[Crowsworthy (Chloe Raven)]

When I finish Bokoblins for Burning Wheel, I’ll hit you up for a low stakes (player-wise) DoW ^^

[Lorestraat]

@Aelvreidra

I think really I’d have to go into the game making a character I don’t care as much about. I’ll be less concerned with my agency over the character if I’m not as invested in them as a person.

If it’s any consolation, there is advice that’s adjacent to this in the codex (although, not exactly and for different reasons). It suggests building ‘wrong’ beliefs, so that as the character is challenged, they ascend instead of fall (p19-20). I find this very engaging personally. I’m willing to fight harder and take more risks if failing those challenges gives my character more depth and let’s me sympathize with them more.

[Gnosego (Quincy)]

Somewhat off topic, but I love playing the selfish scumbag who has a heroic turn!

[Aelvreidra]

Yeah, I had read that bit. It’s not something I’d normally be interested in, but I guess it could be fun in the context of Burning Wheel. I think I’d have to be careful about in what way their beliefs are wrong to keep the character still feeling sympathetic to me

Edit: Like @Gnosego says, being selfish is the sort of character flaw that would be easy enough to start out with then move away from. Really, it’s sort of what I have in mind for the character I’ve built so far. More specifically a bit of a reluctant hero type but still.

[Countercheck]

I don’t mean to resurrect this discussion really, or dogpile, but I’ve been followwing it and had a thought. One way to get around the dislike of DoW acting as mind control (which is actually a legit dislike) without necessarily using a ‘get out of it’ house rule is to, at your table, ensure that all DoW stakes are framed as getting the other person to verbally agree to do something. Losing a DoW means, potentially, that you’ve been badgered or tricked or coerced into agreeing to something you don’t want and don’t believe is right. But you’ve made a promise. Maybe sworn an oath. There are consequences to not following through. And then you get to explore if your character is true to their word or not. You can choose NOT to follow through, and that changes the fiction. Just an option if you’re interested.

[gyakusetsu (Todd Grotenhuis)]

Simple and effective. Also a good source for Trait and Reputation to develop at next vote.

[Aelvreidra]

Hum, this is a similar idea to “walking away” after the duel but rather than making the decision at that one point it just means you’ll be able to back out at any point. It’s a little more natural I suppose, since the duel’s result still means something either way it’s just that the character is allowed to go back on wjat they agreed to.

I think this seems reasonable, personally. It’s still sort of going against Let it Ride by letting the character go against what they agreed to at any point later but I do think it sounds interesting. There would be (probably) pretty straightforward consequences to going back on your word.