Duel of Wits and Confrontation

[jhkim]

This is a bit of a collection on my thoughts after a few months of my first Burning Wheel campaign. I'm playing a very socially oriented character -- a rich, scheming merchantwoman. (I've referred to her as a "lean, mean Duel-of-Wits machine".)

One thing that strikes me is that the social rules are very confrontational. Partly this is by being zero sum, where if I am highly successful, then I get what I want and others do not get what they want. Modelling social interactions on combat also probably has something to do with it as well.

My observation has been that I tend to piss people off. Suppose I Duel of Wits someone and beat them handily. In practice, that tends to mean that they agree to do what I want, but they tend to act grudging and resentful about it. I realize that in principle, a player (or GM) should accept in-character that their being beaten should really represent their character doing the thing willingly. However, in practice it seems difficult to role-play this. Has this been anyone else's experience?

Really, I can live with this for our campaign. I can easily picture Judyn as someone who pisses people off but still gets her way. However, it seems like it ought to be possible for someone who is successful socially without pissing people off this way. Perhaps some traits that allow the carrot rather than the stick -- i.e. a character who gives bonuses to her friends rather than forcing others to do what she wants, perhaps.

A few other thoughts:

One thing is that as a scheming character, DoW sometimes seems like a blunt instrument. For example, I had been concerned about a young teenage girl (Kara) who liked a boy whom I considered inappropriate. I came up with a scheme to get her to see him flirting with other girls in order to dissuade her. However, in the game, an easier thing for me to do would be for me to do would be to just walk up to her and Duel-of-Wits her into rejecting him. (And my Scheming trait would get me +1 to my Body of Argument.) But that felt wrong for how I pictured her working.

Another thing is that for low-Will opponents, I can easily persuade them with a simple test. However, for some high-Will (but not socially skilled) characters, it is much easier for me to beat them in a Duel of Wits than it is to succeed in a simple Persuade test. One thought is that maybe social tests should be done more like a Bloody Versus (skill versus skill) rather than skill versus target's attribute (i.e. Persuasion with obstacle of target's Will).

[luke]

Hi John,

Thanks for posting your thoughts.

We've found that the DoW can act as you've described. We've also found that it is more versatile and subtle than we realized. Your actions as a player in a DoW really make a statement about your character. As a player, you don't have to use it as a blunt instrument. Yeah, a super powerful social character can beat the pants off other less socially inclined characters, but you're right, the players are going to hate you for it. Same as if your thuggish barbarian beat them up and pushed them around. Stated another way, when you win in a one action Dismiss, your opponent is well aware that your character is a manipulative bitch. :)

How do you get around that? Use SoPs that are less toxic to your opponent, for one. Make them more subtle and oblique. But more than that, make sure they get a compromise. Gaming a Duel of Wits isn't just about winning, it's about winning and making your opponent think that he's won, too.

Hope that helps,
-L

[Mel White]

One thing I've noticed as well is that really powerful characters at DoW don't get to do that many DoWs after a while. Both players have to agree to the Duel, so the weaker side can put off the argument until he or she has some support or even indefinitely. In the case of Kara, for example, 'walking away' could mean something like promising not to see the boy, but not meaning it!
Mel
PS I want to add an example from the BW game at Dreamation. Parsifal (PC)had brought the Grail to Camelot. Merlin (NPC) instructed Parsifal to hand over the Grail, Parsifal refused and instead tried to get Merlin to bring him to King Arthur. I suggested to the player that we should have a DoW. She refused, so Merlin left Parsifal cooling his heels in the antechamber. He would have to find some other way into the throne room, which he did!

[jhkim]

We've found that the DoW can act as you've described. We've also found that it is more versatile and subtle than we realized. Your actions as a player in a DoW really make a statement about your character. As a player, you don't have to use it as a blunt instrument. Yeah, a super powerful social character can beat the pants off other less socially inclined characters, but you're right, the players are going to hate you for it. Same as if your thuggish barbarian beat them up and pushed them around. Stated another way, when you win in a one action Dismiss, your opponent is well aware that your character is a manipulative bitch. :)
Well, I agree that mechanically, DoW is similar to having a thuggish barbarian push you around. However, within the game-world, intuitively I would picture them as different. i.e. High combat skills would come across as thuggish -- but I would expect that using high social skills should not come across as thuggish. Indeed, quite the opposite -- I would expect being highly socially skilled to involve a high degree of subtlety.


How do you get around that? Use SoPs that are less toxic to your opponent, for one. Make them more subtle and oblique. But more than that, make sure they get a compromise. Gaming a Duel of Wits isn't just about winning, it's about winning and making your opponent think that he's won, too.
Effectively, you're saying that I shouldn't use my high social skills if I want to be liked. i.e. I've got a huge number of social skill dice, but I should back off and roll less dice than I have or otherwise intentionally fail so that the opponent does better in the DoW. That seems pretty counter-intuitive. I would think that at least in some cases, having all those social skill should be useful for being liked.

In any case, it's pretty hard to make the opposing player think that he's won, when it's perfectly clear otherwise from the mechanics. Now, I could try to make the opposing character think that he's won -- for example by including "thinks that he's won" as part of the stakes. But as I mentioned, that doesn't seem to work well in practice.

[jhkim]

As a follow-up... Again, I'm comfortable with my character Judyn being seen as a manipulative bitch who people mysteriously go along even though they hate her.

However, I would think that there ought to be room for social skills to be useful for, say, a character whom everyone thinks is a great guy. i.e. Someone who's good at talking openly to people, making them feel good, and suggesting useful compromises that everyone is satisfied with. The answer for this sort of character seems to be "Well, don't actually use your mechanical social skills, because that would be like beating people up and they hate it."

So maybe there could be some optional systems for alternative social skills or alternative uses for existing social skills.

[Iskander]

Perhaps the flip side of the DoW is that you actually have to play the character like a good guy to have the other players think he is. If you Duel like a bastard, you're being a bastard. All-around good guys don't retain that reputation long if they persuade people to do miserable things all the time. (In my experience, any more than one house move per lifetime does it.)

Also, I think you're slightly missing Luke's point about the Statement of Purpose: if your statement is toxic, you're being a bastard, no matter what. You can persuade them, sure, and maybe you can color your persuasion as a nice-guy routine, but you're still being a bastard.

In our Ya-Gahn game, my character, Lassah, is a social monster compared to the others; although that's been changing as the game progresses, of course: their skills are catching up to mine. We have had an extended plotline involving a woman who lost her child under unpleasant circumstances. I thought that Thor's character, Rau, should marry her, and Thor disagreed. He very much didn't want Rau to marry her (or to marry Lassah, earlier, for that matter). Nevertheless, I took it to a DoW, and beat him, taking (if I recall correctly) a minor compromise. I was happy offering what was probably closer to a major compromise, at least in part because I knew that Thor was pissed with me. Also, it was good fiction. When duelling, I had to weigh how much I valued my narrative goal of getting Rau married, with how angry it would make Thor before he punched me.

I'm trying to remember a good counter-example, and failing (which is why I take the Eidetic Memory trait when I can), but I'm damn sure that in the same game, I've lost a Duel of Wits and been pleased as punch with the compromise I got, and felt like I was the victor.

[Esteban]

However, I would think that there ought to be room for social skills to be useful for, say, a character whom everyone thinks is a great guy.

The problem is you want your character to be liked. But, having high social skills does not mean you're going to be liked.

Think of politicians. Most of them are quite adept at social skills. Most of the skills used DoW are what make up a typical politician's skill set. Are politicians liked by all? Hardly, they all have detractors. Some detractors are quite vocal, even to the point of being violent.

Even with the example of John the Good Guy. There are people who hate the Good Guy. They feel spite and disdain towards him. The fact that he's liked by others causes them displeasure. Maybe the Good Guy was good to someone they hated, and now they hate him as a result.

In any case, players are free to interpret your social positioning in whatever light they want. They might be in awe of it or feel slighted by it. It's their choice as players.

DoW is a conflict mechanic, and as such, the two parties are already at odds. This isn't some minor issue. Whatever it is, they don't want to agree.

Someone who's good at talking openly to people, making them feel good, and suggesting useful compromises that everyone is satisfied with.

There's no conflict there. Everyone is in agreement. Why use a DoW? Seems like something you can just glow over in RP.

If what you seek from a DoW is to get the other person to like you, then the other player needs to agree to those terms. Include it in your stakes: the opponent will feel happy and like your character as a result of the duel. And you have to agree to their stakes.

Then that becomes part of your goal in the duel. That's what you're fighting for, not only to win, but to win in a manner that makes others like your character. And most importantly, the other player agreed to it, he's agreed to liking your character if he loses.

The only thing that can force a person to like someone is mind control, and for that there are other mechanisms available!

[luke]

John,
I'm sorry, I must not have been clear. I'm not telling you to gimp your character. I don't have time to get into it right now, but I "play to lose" all the time and end up winning more than I had hoped for.

Also, DoW's are often best on the slow burn. No need to slam into mind control territory, "YOU WILL DO WHAT I SAY." If the GM isn't refusing those, then something's wrong. Start small and subtle. Have Duel of Wits about becoming friends or allies. Have Duel of Wits about agreeing on subject or opinion. Build slowly and obliquely, so that when the time comes for the big blow out, you don't even have to have conflict, you've got them painted in with obligations and they think you're best of friends.

-L

[EarthenForge]

I want to add an example from the BW game at Dreamation. Parsifal (PC)had brought the Grail to Camelot. Merlin (NPC) instructed Parsifal to hand over the Grail, Parsifal refused and instead tried to get Merlin to bring him to King Arthur. I suggested to the player that we should have a DoW. She refused, so Merlin left Parsifal cooling his heels in the antechamber. He would have to find some other way into the throne room, which he did!

Ha! I should have been heckled for that. Lucky for me we were playing with n00bs and they thought what I did was perfectly logical (well it kinda was, Parsifal was scared of Merlin!) and fought my DoW for me, even though Parsifal still bore the brunt of the insults. That was cool and very nice of them. They might not have done that if they knew what a bastard Arthur was.

My players get around DoWs with NPCs occasionally by using Persuade instead when the situation is appropriate. Sometimes it's an easier, faster test to win, although it doesn't allow for all-important compromises.

In addition to what Iskander was saying, playing your character "nice" goes beyond the Statement of Intent and compromises, although those two probably matter most. You can also roleplay those volleys in such a way as to gently make your argument. Obviously, you'd avoid "Incite," but many of the other actions can be spoken carefully. Compliment the other side, flatter, concede good points but come back with another. Good roleplaying may not change the mechanical outcome overmuch, but it may change how your fellow players perceive you/your character.

[jhkim]

In any case, players are free to interpret your social positioning in whatever light they want. They might be in awe of it or feel slighted by it. It's their choice as players.

DoW is a conflict mechanic, and as such, the two parties are already at odds. This isn't some minor issue. Whatever it is, they don't want to agree.
Right. That's what I'm saying seems like a hole in the rules. In real life, social skills are useful in more situations than just confrontationally dealing with people who are at odds with you. They are useful for helping people agree, and making people like you.

If what you seek from a DoW is to get the other person to like you, then the other player needs to agree to those terms. Include it in your stakes: the opponent will feel happy and like your character as a result of the duel. And you have to agree to their stakes.

Then that becomes part of your goal in the duel. That's what you're fighting for, not only to win, but to win in a manner that makes others like your character. And most importantly, the other player agreed to it, he's agreed to liking your character if he loses.
I admit I haven't tried this. I'll give it a try in some upcoming sessions. Do you have any experience with trying this as a goal? It seems like it would be odd including this as a goal?

For those who thought it is natural to resent Duel of Wits -- do you think it's reasonable to include a goal of "you'll think you've won and like me" as part of the stakes?

[Berandor]

Right. That's what I'm saying seems like a hole in the rules. In real life, social skills are useful in more situations than just confrontationally dealing with people who are at odds with you. They are useful for helping people agree, and making people like you.


They are more useful in BW. After showing the girl the truth about her boyfriend, you can use "Soothing Platitudes" without going into a duel of wits. When pondering which way to go, an undecided character might not oppose you, per se, but still want you to state your case with Persuasion. And so on.

[Esteban]

I admit I haven't tried this. I'll give it a try in some upcoming sessions. Do you have any experience with trying this as a goal? It seems like it would be odd including this as a goal?


I don't see why its odd, when it is in fact part of your goal!

The opposing stakes might be quite harsh though, depending on what the other player feels is fair. If you win, the opposing character walk away happy, but if you lose the opposing player might declare his character hates yours and thinks he's manipulative.

I haven't tried this personally, but I don't see why other players wouldn't agree to it if you made it worth their while. You can do this by setting up tempting stakes, for example. Or engaging in low impact DoW's, don't go for the jugular, nibble away at the edges of what you're trying to get to.

In the end you can't really substitute character social skills for personal social skills. In a social game like an RPG, the player is going to have to work on behalf of his character to get other players on board with his concept. This means being wise about how, when and in what manner you engage in conflicts with other players.

[Paul B]

Good thread. I'm nodding along to a lot of this.

I like Luke's approach to this issue -- have other, smaller DOWs leading up to your big attack, to help set the context and expectations of that fight -- but that requires a) highly strategic planning on the player's part and b) a willingness on the part of all parties to honor that context.

My first instinct was to suggest something along the lines of, "Build being liked into your SOP." But upon reflection I don't think that'd work. For one, you're asking for two things at once, which IIRC isn't kosher: "Give me what I want, and be happy about it." For another, it feels (to me!) like you're sort of drifting the conflict part of the conflict resolution: is the conflict getting the target to do what you want? Or is it getting the target to like you?

There's all sorts of social contract stuff happening at the table, at least in my group, that makes the DOW act exactly as you've described. They absolutely won't engage the system with each other, but will happily go after NPCs using it. A big part of that is because they trust that I, as GM, am going to honor the approach the player chooses: If his character is being charming, then upon victory the NPC will act charmed. If his character is being intimidating, then upon victory the NPC will be cowed or resentful. But that's on me to live up to not only the letter, but the spirit, of the victory.

That sort of attitude probably has to take place between players as well. Unfortunately, given the ownership/relationship between player and PC, that's headed into deprotagonization territory -- you know, you play your character how you want and I'll play my character the way I want, and screw it if my play doesn't support your play. Is that dysfunctional play? Probably. But it's also one of the most deeply steeped traditions of play as well.

p.

[Esteban]

For one, you're asking for two things at once, which IIRC isn't kosher: "Give me what I want, and be happy about it." For another, it feels (to me!) like you're sort of drifting the conflict part of the conflict resolution: is the conflict getting the target to do what you want? Or is it getting the target to like you?

That's part of what I'm thinking too. Hence, you have to state upfront that your intent is for the antagonist to end up liking you. And to do that you might have to lower your expectations regarding what you accomplish. If you want to keep others happy, you're going to have to appease, appease, appease.

This problem reminds me of a phrase that goes: "Making money is easy, if that's all you care about." Which is quite obvious if you think about it: if you ditch your personal well being, your family, your ethics, morality, etc... out the window, you're sure to find ways of making money (and lots of it). But you'll be left a husk of a broken character.

But most people find that hard to do. They want other things as well, even if money seems like their primary issue.

Same thing is going to happen here: "Being liked is easy, if that's all you care about." The more BITs you want to keep in play the harder it's going to be continually liked by your antagonists. Afterall, they ARE your antagonists.


Unfortunately, given the ownership/relationship between player and PC, that's headed into deprotagonization territory -- you know, you play your character how you want and I'll play my character the way I want, and screw it if my play doesn't support your play. Is that dysfunctional play?

I know this was probably rhetorical, but I wanted to take a stab at it anyways. I don't think the person keeping control of his character is dysfunctional. I think it's dysfunctional on the part of the player whose concept requires, nay demands, the forced participation of others. Because then by definition it's no longer a personal affair, it's become a group affair. It then becomes like sex, and you damned well better be prepared to ask for others consent, before engaging in whatever it is that you like.

Going along those lines, a character being likeable isn't even really a description of the character. It's a description of his interactions with others. Kind of tongue in cheek: "If a player is nice in an empty forest, does anyone like him for it?"

[Thor Olavsrud]

Alexander, I wasn't pissed about that Duel of Wits with Lassah. I got exactly what I wanted out of it: Rau wound up with an unhappy marriage that will end in tears or violence, and Lassah was cast out of the tribe for binding the ghost of the girl's child to her.

It was a major compromise, BTW.

I went into that Duel of Wits knowing I was going to lose. Lassah has always been the social monster in that game, with both skills and traits to back her up. I started the game with no dueling skills and a Will B3. By the time of that Duel, I think I had a Persuasion B4.

Even though I lost that duel to Lassah, I feel like I got the best of Alexander. Just as clearly, Alexander feels that he wiped the floor with me. In fact, Alexander scripted in such a way as to not shut me out of the conflict. He didn't go directly for the win. He allowed me the opportunity to win a compromise.

If your character is a social machine and you want your opponent to stand by you after a Duel of Wits, then make sure your statement of purpose gets you what you want, but also leaves a little something for your opponent. It doesn't necessarily have to be something your opponent wants, but it should at least be something your opponent thinks is cool or interesting.

If your character is weak going into a Duel of Wits, then ask for more than what you actually want and gun for the compromise. You'll have to submit to what your opponent wanted, but you'll likely get enough of a compromise to get what you want too.

One of my favorite tactics for a character that's weak in the duel of wits is to initiate a duel against an issue or direction that I, as the player, am actually interested in pursuing, pressuring another player to convince my character to go along. If I lose, it's cool, I was interested in doing that thing anyway, but I may be able to use the compromise I win to get something else. The risk with this tactic is that you might actually win, so you have to be prepared for that outcome!

Finally, the actual words you have your character speak and the script you choose during a duel of wits are very important. If you make your points in a respectful and friendly manner, I'll take it in a much different way than if your words are forceful and dismissive! I'll also pay attention to your script. Points and Rebuttals are forthright and direct. Feints are underhanded and sneaky. Avoids and Obfuscates make you evasive. Incites and Dismisses are downright rude.

[little_brynne]

"Being liked is easy, if that's all you care about." The more BITs you want to keep in play the harder it's going to be continually liked by your antagonists. Afterall, they ARE your antagonists.

In reading this thread, I keep thinking about how the "real life equivalents" of social skills tend to work. (And for some reason, I keep coming up with high school examples.) Everyone might like that shy, sweet guy who sits in the back of homeroom, but if he invites you to his birthday party on the same night as your favorite TV show, you probably won't go. On the other hand, everyone is afraid of the gruff gym teacher, and will carry the big bag of soccer balls for him if he asks, but nobody likes him and they resent him for getting his way. The closest example I can come up with of someone that is persuasive and likeable is the classic prom queen/cheerleader type, who is popular and loved and always gets people to do what she wants. But I've seen enough teen movies to know that, deep down, everybody really resents her and, at some point, pushing people around (even nicely) will bite her in the butt.

So, I guess it's unrealistic to think that your character can have everything - be persuasive and well-loved - forever. It comes down to what your intentions are and how you role-play them. If you choose to role-play your DoW like the gym teacher (using intimidation and brute force arguments), people will do what you want, but dislike you. If you choose to role-play your DoW like the cheerleader (building a lot of flattery and whatnot into your points), then the person on the other side should come out feeling like they do genuinely want to go along with what you're asking, and still like you for it. But I think it would be realistic, too, for them to secretly feel taken advantage of, or to realize later on that you weren't being genuine, and for it to ultimately impact your likeability and/or ability to persuade them to enter into another DoW later on.

[Z-Dog]

JhKim's original post and character reminds me of a character in "The Prince of Nothing."

He's the most charming, persuasive, charismatic guy ever. And he totally dominates people through his social skills. He masters them.

In a BW game, I think a player who would want to do this would have to be one clever bastard. He'd have to use his own personal social skills to keep the peace at the table and use the game mechanics to his advantage (without making everyone at the table feel like they're being manipulated).

It's not something I think anyone could do well without all the players being "in" on it and willing to play along.

[luke]

There's been good advice and feedback in this thread. But I see a slippery slope coming. So let me say DoW is not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be part of the game. It reflects the mood and philosophy of Burning Wheel. It's "how it is" in the game world. And if it makes dicks out of social characters, perhaps we've all learned something about myself, Dro, Thor and Pete.

[Kublai]

Did you just call me a dick?

[Esteban]

Did you just call me a dick?

*starts at low volume chant then increases* Duel of Wits! Duel of Wits! Duel of Wits!

[jchokey]

My first instinct was to suggest something along the lines of, "Build being liked into your SOP." But upon reflection I don't think that'd work. For one, you're asking for two things at once, which IIRC isn't kosher: "Give me what I want, and be happy about it."


Is it really asking for two things at once? Or is it just being more specific about *how* the other character will do what you're asking for-- i.e. "If I succeed completely, he will do X happily." To me, it seems really more like you're just adding an adverb to the stakes, just as one might by saying, "If I succeed completely, he will do X immediately."

I'm not nearly as experienced with DOWs as many here (I'm the GM of the game in which John plays Judyn and it's my first time GMing BW), but I don't really see the problem with this. (I also like the fact that it also sets up a rather convenient compromise in the event of a less-than-shutout situation: The person does what exactly s/he is asked-- but grudgingly or grumpily. Or, in the alternative, the person does something less than what was asked, but does so happily.)

[Kintara]

Well, duels of wits are negotiations where people put things on the table, but I think many players actively avoid setting stakes about emotional states like that (emotional control implies mind control in its execution). If you lie convincingly and create a reasonable situation around your argument in the duel of wits, and avoid tactics that seem like evasion or perversion of the point, then maybe they'll like you for giving you what you want. Or you can pitch statements of purpose that seem to scale appropriately "fairly." So if you're a social monster, you let the other guy off a little in your statements and encourage favorable compromises, even if you don't hold back in the fight and usually get what you want, mostly.

Being nice is a long term strategy, really. And it's more about how than what.

Edit: Interesting things can be done with statements of purpose, though, if the other players notice how much you care about being liked. What can happen is that you can put that at stake with your BITs, and then you and the GM (or another player) set up arguments about whether the NPC will detect a false motive. You may or may not be able to stay well liked, but if that's important than it might be worth risking. But I think the actual feelings should be more of a statement of evidence and approach than the literal stakes of a DoW.

[Esteban]

Is it really asking for two things at once?

You're right, it's not really asking two things. It's just making the one thing you're asking more complex and detailed. If complex statements of purpose work for your group, then there's nothing to worry about.

But complexity can be a deterrent to reaching a compromise as it gives people more things to pick at. It's like a contract: the more clauses it has, the more people will pause. So it's useful to be aware that in the eyes of someone else you might be asking for more than they are willing to give by simply adding an adverb.

[Paul B]

The more I think about this, the more convinced I'm getting that dueling over attitudes (rather than agreeing to things) may be pretty darned hard for some players to swallow. I don't think it's particularly controversial that many players prefer to be in control over the attitudes of their characters.

So, like, when someone comes at me with a DOW and they say, "I want your character to agree to enter into an alliance with my kingdom," not a problem. It's an action, a thing outside my character.

But when someone comes at me with a DOW and they say, "I want your character to become bestest friends with my character," hm! Different. You're now asking me to gamble with my character's interior state, maybe even his identity.

Naturally there's a lot of "it depends" involved in this conversation. But what I'm getting at is, probably there's a line that every player draws for himself. As a GM, I have no problem at all gambling away my NPCs' motivations and attitudes. They're not "mine;" the NPCs are just there as foils to the PCs, really. As a player, though, that's some awfully high goddamned stakes.

p.

[EarthenForge]

The more I think about this, the more convinced I'm getting that dueling over attitudes (rather than agreeing to things) may be pretty darned hard for some players to swallow. I don't think it's particularly controversial that many players prefer to be in control over the attitudes of their characters...that's some awfully high goddamned stakes.


Yeah, but you still have to agree to the terms. And, you can always walk away. It may not be the coolest option, but I don't think it's lame if the other player's being a dick and won't offer agreeable terms. At best though, you can both just restate the terms to something more palatable...something that doesn't involve agreeing to an attitude before the duel is even had. That rubs me the wrong way because you don't know what the other player's going to say in the duel.

[luke]

Paul, I know exactly where you're coming from. I've been there, and I meet a lot of players with that attitude. A straight up SoP with an emotionally manipulative intent can seem repulsive to some people.

But you know where, "How about you respect me a lot for having spoken up?" works nearly every time?

As an unanticipated and naturally arrived at compromise.

-L

[EarthenForge]

But you know where, "How about you respect me a lot for having spoken up?" works nearly every time?

As an unanticipated and naturally arrived at compromise.

Ooo - that's hot!

[jhkim]

The more I think about this, the more convinced I'm getting that dueling over attitudes (rather than agreeing to things) may be pretty darned hard for some players to swallow. I don't think it's particularly controversial that many players prefer to be in control over the attitudes of their characters.

So, like, when someone comes at me with a DOW and they say, "I want your character to agree to enter into an alliance with my kingdom," not a problem. It's an action, a thing outside my character.
Well, I'd agree it depends on the player, but mostly I agree with you. Although, I do think that even though people make this split, in principle it isn't really consistent. Duel Of Wits isn't a magical force that makes your character's body do things against her wishes. Thus, as I see it, if your character enters into an alliance as a result of a DoW, she does that of her own free will. No one is forcing her to. Out of game there is a rule forcing you the player to do that action, but in the game there is some internal change in attitude such that she is choosing to do that action.

In practice, though, I think it is hard to separate this, even for the GM.

[Esteban]

But when someone comes at me with a DOW and they say, "I want your character to become bestest friends with my character," hm! Different. You're now asking me to gamble with my character's interior state, maybe even his identity.

I think like Luke pointed out, it almost always comes down to how we phrase it. "Become bestest friends", carries a lot of importance to many people. It's something one has to work at for years. Best friends aren't born from one single conversation, maybe that's how the relationship started, but it didn't reach that stage immediately.

So going back, perhaps it's best to realize the weight and meaning of what we're saying in our statements of purpose. Becoming someone's friends is a HUGE stake for a DoW.

There are many other ways to have someone "like" you without them having to "really really like you, BFF! XOXO!"


"You respect my character more."
"You appreciate his point of view."
"You don't share his opinion but think it's well founded."
"You're amused by his eccentric opinion."


These are all starting points for a friendship. And it goes back to taking on bit-sized stakes that aren't bullish.

And I mean, even if you do set stakes like "You'll become bestest of friends with my character." That doesn't mean that you have to remain that way for long. The DoW only entitles you to the story going that way for a while. It's not like you have adhere to him being your best friend for the rest of the campaign, which I think is what scares people the most. The next interaction can lead to a catastrophic falling out:

"I thought you were my bestest friend! You're nothing but a manipulative lying bastard! I hate you!"

You could even set up for that kind of situation by making your own DoW's in retaliation with stakes like: "Now that you're my best friend, if I win you'll do X, otherwise everyone will see you as a worthless friend." You can turn around that friendship and used it against the person who brought it upon you in the first place.

[Esteban]

Thus, as I see it, if your character enters into an alliance as a result of a DoW, she does that of her own free will. No one is forcing her to.

I don't think that's necessarily true. A duel of wits is about convincing an audience, that can be the character but it can also be an external audience.

For example, a political debate where the stakes are who wins the voters. The voters are the audience, not the opposing candidate. In this case, the losing candidate didn't really agree to losing the voters, the player did. Hence, she might be angry, upset, etc... The character isn't implicitly bound to like the result of the DoW.

How the actual DoW plays out will depend on the roleplay and color associated with it.

Another example is a DoW revolving around a forced marriage: King Henry wants Prince Fred to marry Princess Marianne. However, Prince Fred wants to marry a common woman, Sarah. The DoW might focus on Henry convincing Fred to marry Marianne, but that's not the only possibility. King Henry might convince the court take his side and thus force the marriage on Prince Fred. King Henry might be sneaky and the DoW might center around convincing Sarah's parents to prohibit the marriage. King Henry might even convince Sarah herself that if she really loves Fred she won't ruin his life by impeding the marriage to Marianne.

In either case, Fred didn't agree to anything! In fact, in most of those cases I can see Fred becoming incredibly upset as a result!

[luke]

Hi John,

Has this conversation been fruitful for you? Has it helped you? You're the OP. There's a lot of good advice here, but we can talk around in circles for a month about this kind of stuff if you let us.

Also, I'd like to ask you about your play. Are you arriving at compromises? Can you describe your group's compromise process? Can you tell me a bit about some of the memorable compromises in your game?

-L

[jhkim]

Hi John,

Has this conversation been fruitful for you? Has it helped you? You're the OP. There's a lot of good advice here, but we can talk around in circles for a month about this kind of stuff if you let us.

Also, I'd like to ask you about your play. Are you arriving at compromises? Can you describe your group's compromise process? Can you tell me a bit about some of the memorable compromises in your game?
The thread has been pretty useful - a few suggestions I'll want to try, and a few others that I'll probably keep on the shelf but was still interested in. (I still have some ideas whirling around about less confrontational social options, but those will take some time to simmer, I think.)

Jim (the GM for our game) just had a thread about compromises (Duel of Wits - Compromises (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5424)) where he talked a little about how we do things. Discussion there was what prompted me to start this thread, actually. Our process of coming to compromises has been a little chaotic as we go back and forth a little while before settling on something jointly.

The compromise that stands out most memorably was after a Duel of Wits for our lives when we were put on trial by someone's accusation of witchcraft. We won pretty handily, but as compromise we backed off from half of our counter-demands (the accuser paying a fine and having his tongue branded for blasphemy).

[zabieru]

The compromise that stands out most memorably was after a Duel of Wits for our lives when we were put on trial by someone's accusation of witchcraft. We won pretty handily, but as compromise we backed off from half of our counter-demands (the accuser paying a fine and having his tongue branded for blasphemy).

What are you trying to play here? You can't just leave us like that.

Tell me you branded his tongue...

[jhkim]

What are you trying to play here? You can't just leave us like that.

Tell me you branded his tongue...
Er, no. We called on branding his tongue as a stake, but we dropped that part as a compromise. He ended up only being required by the court to apologize and all charges were dropped (and didn't get any court costs back, naturally).