From D&D to BW : Persuasion/Intimidation/etc.

[Marune]

In D&D the usage of these (social) skills from NPCs on PCs is strictly forbiden by the rules. (The idea is that players are always in control of what their characters are doing, except when magic comes in play.)

So, from someone coming from an D&D game, having his character persuaded to do something he wouldn't want in the first place could be quite disturbing.

I just want to know how well it works in BW actual play? Some exemples are welcome.

[Kublai]

Duel of Wits is ALL about making characters do what the NPC wants and vice-versa. It's so common in our games that I can't imagine it not happening.

[Marune]

Duel of Wits is ALL about making characters do what the NPC wants and vice-versa. It's so common in our games that I can't imagine it not happening.

DoW is a different thing, players have to make versus test, etc. With persuation, it's only the GM testing agaisn't the player's will.

[zabieru]

It's still a versus test.

Again, this is Bloody Versus/Fight. If it's not that important, or happens all in a flash, do a Persuasion versus Will, or an appropriate skill. If it's important, Duel of Wits.

Also remember stakes. If the player doesn't want to be persuaded, he or she can walk away. That could mean a fight, it certainly does mean a missed opportunity to get what you want, but it is an option. Or, you can talk the stakes down. "I want to persuade you to knife the Duke. If I lose you can arrest me." "No, I don't think so. How about if I win, you refuse the contract on his life, but if you win, I'll keep quiet and not warn him when you enter his chambers to kill him."

[Fuseboy]

I find it's helpful to think of myself as one of the authors of a spontaneous play.

In a boardgame, there's no distinction between player and character, because there's no character. In a lot of D&D play, it's the same way, with a much more complicated playing piece, but your "success" is directly aligned with your character's ideas of success.

It's party vs. DM, so "losing control of your character" is like having someone play cards out of your hand - it just takes you out of the game.

In BW, the idea slightly more oriented toward you (the player) taking joy in an entertaining story, even if this complicates things (or is even outright horrible) from the perspective of your "playing piece".

Think of it as a sacrifice that gives you other advantages.

First of all, as someone else recently mentioned in another thread, it greatly cuts down on arguments about what to do. In a D&D game on Friday we argued for half an hour about how to tackle our current challenge, until, exasperated, I negotiated with another player to resolve it with an opposed Charisma test. Moments later, we were out of there. I lost, but it was a small price to pay to get the story moving again!

The other thing is that there's the potential to bring interesting inter-personal dynamics into the party. D&D is filled with characters that are super-cool and emotionally untouchable - boring. Exposing characters to one another's influences brings their personalities to life.

Who wants to play the simpering loser who's always giving in? The story arc of the wimp who finally takes a stand is entertaining (if cliched), and BW gives you a framework to pull that off.

[zipht]

Also remember stakes. If the player doesn't want to be persuaded, he or she can walk away. That could mean a fight, it certainly does mean a missed opportunity to get what you want, but it is an option. Or, you can talk the stakes down.

In our game the PC's had some reservations about being persuaded. They didnt like it at all, So I redefined the stakes. Now I think maybe I should have reminded them that they can walk away, althought that would be a missed opportunity.. and remind them that they could just stab that guy.

My players that have come from D&D, and vampire seem to forget that they can walk away from social conflicts. I think that Setting Stakes is such a new idea, you dont get to setup conflicts like that in other RPG's.

Althought they have enjoyed how things escalate with higher stakes, I dont think that the lights have come on in their heads as they havent started seting up stakes on their own. We still play alot like D&D much to my dismay..

I could use a guide or how to on BW play. Yes, I know BW pg 265. I think that my PC's are just shy, They are not used to the having responsibility's in the game, they are used to just showing up and story happen to them. Where as BW expects and requires more of players. I did have one player drop the game as it was just too much for her.

I know that BE has changed how I think about playing the game. Now I think of play in units of scenes, ether building to conflict or resolving conflict, or color were I, or a PC narrates a bit.

back on topic, I think that players coming from D&D are used to DM's screwing with there characters, thus they dont like Persuasion and Intimidation. As in D&D these are often used like mind control, to get NPC's to do things for the PC's. We need to remind PC's that in BW they have options, to walk way, or to stab there foes..

[Trismegistus]

I could use a guide or how to on BW play. Yes, I know BW pg 265. I think that my PC's are just shy, They are not used to the having responsibility's in the game, they are used to just showing up and story happen to them. Where as BW expects and requires more of players. I did have one player drop the game as it was just too much for her.

I agree 810%


back on topic, I think that players coming from D&D are used to DM's screwing with there characters, thus they dont like Persuasion and Intimidation. As in D&D these are often used like mind control, to get NPC's to do things for the PC's. We need to remind PC's that in BW they have options, to walk way, or to stab there foes..

I also think it's important to remind players that the object isn't always to "win," as it is in DnD. Having bad things happen to your character can create a lot of fun. The real hurdle to be overcome is the feeling of failure that most players get when the dice don't go their way or someone defeats them. Inviting players to explore the ugly things that happen to their characters is a challenge, but if you can do it, your games will drastically improve, I think, especially a game like BW.

[ChrisG]

Some players just don't want to risk that their characters have to go along with something they didn't choose. That's cool. The trade off is that they don't get the chance to make another PC or NPC do what *they* want. It's really all about explaining that dynamic.

It's not about "hey if the DM beats you, you fall on your sword", it's "hey if you win, you get the magic sword, but if the DM wins, you'll have to find another way to get your grubby hands on it". Backing out of a DoW means they're sticking with the status quo and is not at all a defeat. It's also important to emphasize the compromise rule. That most DoW end up as a partial win for both parties.

There's a fine art to setting stakes that players can't refuse. :twisted:

A good way to start is to ask the players if they want to initiate DoW. Get them to articulate what they want from the NPC. Then hit them up with your end of the bargain, and watch the temptation sink in. Also, make it clear that it's not an all or nothing affair--they don't like those stakes, propose a new set. I'd also start with just PC v NPC conflicts. Once they're comfortable, then PC v PC conflicts stop being scary and start being fun.

[Marune]

Like I replied above, in DoW there are versus tests, no problems there. But with persuasion (and some others) It's only a test from the NPC against the Will exponent of the PC.

It's mainly from these skills that I see problems coming from D&D players.

[Kublai]

It's going to require an adjustment on their part as to what to expect from the game. I don't see anything mechanics can do to make it easier. It's going to be the responsibility of the GM to use such skills wisely and only in situations that will generate good story. It's going to be the responsibility of the players to realize that allowing themselves to be persuaded will only mean good things for the story.

Abzu always use to remind us that anything mechanic we use against an NPC can and will be used against the PCs. Why not? In terms of the story, there is no difference between the NPC King and the PC knight, right?

All this being said, I can't actually recall a time I as a GM used such a skill against a character. Sure, I've used the spell Persuasion, but that's a completely different story! And maybe I used Intimidation to make a player hesitate, but that's a very short-term effect.

[Bastoche]

Like I replied above, in DoW there are versus tests, no problems there. But with persuasion (and some others) It's only a test from the NPC against the Will exponent of the PC.

It's mainly from these skills that I see problems coming from D&D players.

If in one specific instance they have a problem with the versus test is becomes a DoW. Just like the Bloody versus vs Fight!.

In the later case, if there is only an attacker and a defender -> bloody versus. If there's 2 attackers -> Fight!

So...

If only one character tries to convince -> versus test if 2 are trying to convince -> DoW.

If it's a versus test, it implies the player don't have a problem with it.

Example:

NPC = tavern maid
PC = Ocran the Barbarian

Versus test example:

Ocran wants to start a brawl in the tavern. It's an old tradition in his culture. The maid knows this and disagree. She tries to convince Ocran not to do it. The PLAYER don't care if there's a brawl or not. A versus test is made. If successful (for the maid) Ocran sits down and suck it up till next time. If the test fail, there's the brawl (assuming another test "start a brawl" is successful ;) !

DoW example:

Ocran Believes that tradition is important and starting a brawl in a tavern is one of them. The maid disagree. The PLAYER wants the brawl at all cost! Duel of wits. If the PC wins, he has his brawl (he could up the stakes at the maid starts the brawl :twisted: ) if he looses, the player suck it up and there's no brawl.

Make sense?

[Gaerik]

Like I replied above, in DoW there are versus tests, no problems there. But with persuasion (and some others) It's only a test from the NPC against the Will exponent of the PC.

It's mainly from these skills that I see problems coming from D&D players.

Just an aside...

Why would making it a Versus test be better for the player than the GM rolling against the PC's Will exponent? The player is less likely to win the Versus Test. Rolling agains the exponent is like a Versus Test where the PC rolled all sucesses. Hell, I'd rather the GM roll against my Will exponent, if winning is important to me.