Lying for your life

[jhkim]

This is inspired by the same in-game situation as the recent thread, "Do you ever treat social conflict as a versus test?" (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5728) However, I think there is more to the question than just the use of versus tests.

So the situation in-game was that we caught someone following us in the woods while on going on a secret mission for our esoteric church. Not knowing who it was, we captured him. It turned out to be the guard of a wizard we knew, who had been sent to spy on us.

In character, we briefly discussed options. We could tie him to a tree so that he didn't see anything and let him go later (drawback: have to explain this to his boss), or kill him (drawback: if his boss did find out we would be in trouble), or trick him into not spying (drawback: might not work). My character Judyn tried Persuasion on him to convince him that we were very touchy and dangerous because of religious issues, and he should butt out of our private religious rituals. I rolled my Persuasion dice against his Will and failed. The question then was whether we knew he would continue to spy on us. At player insistence, the GM rolled a Beginner's Luck Falsehood test for him against my Will. He failed, so we knew he was lying. One of the other PCs then slit his throat.

Now, the way this was done, that was probably the most likely outcome. Hitting someone's Will as an obstacle is tough, and so it was likely that both rolls would fail -- i.e. I couldn't persuade him to walk away, and he couldn't deceive me that he truly would. Thus we kill him to be sure.

However, the GM Jim (who'll probably comment shortly) was unsatisfied with this mechanically. At the start of next session, we talked around a while about how this would be handled. Basically, we went back and forth on the issue a bunch -- the players were basically all satisfied at how the events had turned out, but Jim felt that it should have been folded into a single resolution somehow -- either a quick versus test (Persuasion versus Falsehood) or a Duel of Wits.

In either one of these, the likely result would have been that my character Judyn kicks the guard's ass, socially speaking -- so he walks home convinced to respect our privacy. Better to tell his boss he failed then to get killed by a bunch of religious wackos.

Anyway, I thought I'd open the situation up for comment, rather than the specific solution of social versus tests.

[luke]

Personally, I would have used the failure result of your Persuasion test to add the wrinkle that you were convinced that you convinced him. Or I would have used a Duel of Wits.

[jhkim]

Personally, I would have used the failure result of your Persuasion test to add the wrinkle that you were convinced that you convinced him. Or I would have used a Duel of Wits.
Interesting. I think that's what Jim's instincts were at first. Would you have made clear that this would be a likely result of failure prior to calling for the roll? If so, then I think we would simply have skipped trying to persuade the guy and gone right to killing him or tying him up.

When we discussed this, my feeling was that the double roll seemed reasonable either way. I pointed out that if my PC were captured, it would seem too easy if simply failing to be convinced (i.e. the NPC failing the Ob 6 Persuasion test) would let me lie my way out of captivity without having to roll Falsehood. More generally, if an NPC tries to convince a PC of something and fails, I would be surprised if I could make the NPC think that he had succeeded as a simple choice afterwards. (Is this an option for your players, or is it a GM-only thing?)

[luke]

Yes I would have indicated the possible outcome of failure. I can't account for your murderous nature!

I would have much preferred a DoW in this case. It would have been short, sharp and to the point.

[jhkim]

Yes I would have indicated the possible outcome of failure. I can't account for your murderous nature!

I would have much preferred a DoW in this case. It would have been short, sharp and to the point.
In retrospect, a quick DoW probably would have been better. But then I say that knowing that a DoW would have been me kicking the guard's ass socially and thus getting my stakes. Certainly in a DoW, we'd have had extended stakes discussion beforehand, instead of extended rules discussion after the first roll.

Though at the time, I don't think it was clear to the GM or to most the players that we would kill him. At first, we only brought up tying him to a tree versus letting him go, which seemed like more of a minor point. It was only after we learned he was lying that Kalrun decided on his own to cut the guard's throat without asking any of the others.

Though you didn't answer about my last question -- whether this was open to players. i.e. If an NPC tries to persuade a PC and fails, can the player choose to say that the NPC thinks they succeeded without a roll?

[luke]

The possibility of a compromise is what's most enticing for me in a Duel of Wits. That's where the guard might have preserved his life or eked out some other concession which would have added a nice wrinkle.

And as a GM and designer, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that your character is a social monster. This is, in fact, the situations in which you should excel. You should be able to convince people of all sorts of unlikely things. Just like the fighters fight and the sorcerers ensorcel, you bend minds to your will. That's cool.

To answer your question: the spotlight is always on the players. I never have NPCs make independent social tests against Will obstacles. It's really not the intention of the rule. If the players want something out of the situation, then it's up to them to frame intent/task. If I need to force a result or compromise, I go to the Duel of Wits.

Does that help?
-L

[jchokey]

Hey John-- Thanks for starting this discussion. I had meant to do so myself, but you beat me to it! :)

I've found your and Luke's discussion on this extremely insightful. I totally agree with Luke that I should have handled this either by (1) just stating explicitly in advance that the consequence of failing your Persuasion test would be that you all believed he was persuaded and let him go, or (2) doing a DoW so that all were bound to the results of it.


Basically, we went back and forth on the issue a bunch -- the players were basically all satisfied at how the events had turned out, but Jim felt that it should have been folded into a single resolution somehow -- either a quick versus test (Persuasion versus Falsehood) or a Duel of Wits.

Let me reiterate I wasn't dissatisfied with the overall way things turned out *plot-wise*. You killed the fellow and that seemed perfectly reasonable. However, I guess I felt that the way I ran the mechanics of it seemed wrong for two reasons:

1) It really was a situation where there were two sides-- y'all and the NPC-- each of whom had its own intent-- and was trying to get the other to act in a certain way. That's a DOW situation-- not a flat Persuasion test situation. I should have seen that from the beginning.

2) Also, the way it played out, there weren't any *real* consequences for you from having failed your Persuasion test on this guy. It was like, "Oh we failed. Well, let's kill him then (unless he somehow manages to trick our characters into believing that we succeeded)." It's not quite breaking the 'let it ride' principle, since you didn't try the exact same task again.... but from a certain perspective, it does seem that you guys got to just go to plan B at getting him off your back without having suffered any complications for having failed at plan A. Having done this as a DoW (or even as a straight Persuasion test with explicitly stated consequences of failure stating that failure = you letting him go without him actually being persuaded) would have avoided that. The failure *would* have had consequences that couldn't just be undone by, "OK, we kill him then, since we failed to convince him."

[jchokey]

In retrospect, a quick DoW probably would have been better. But then I say that knowing that a DoW would have been me kicking the guard's ass socially and thus getting my stakes.

Well, as Luke pointed out-- that's what high Persuasion is for! You're a talker, not a fighter-- that's how you achieve your goals. You should do well at things you're good at.

On the other hand.... let's keep in mind that you also failed your flat out Perusasion roll against him... despite the fact that you were rolling, what-- 9 dice against an ob of 3-4. (IN fact, it's because you failed that, that we're even having this discussion.). It *could* have been that, in a DOW, he might have forced a compromise of some sort because of your bad roll *shrug*

[jchokey]

Interesting. I think that's what Jim's instincts were at first. Would you have made clear that this would be a likely result of failure prior to calling for the roll? If so, then I think we would simply have skipped trying to persuade the guy and gone right to killing him or tying him up.


Which, I think, would have been totally fine. You would have been 'walking away' (to appropriate a term from DoW) from the persuasion approach because you found the risk of failure unacceptable-- and instead chosen a different, more violent approach (with its own possible consequences).

I wouldn't have been dissatisfied by that at all--- because it would have meant that you were doing it *before* you rolled and discovered that you failed on the persuasion approach--- rather than doing it afterwards as a kind of 'end run' around the already established failure.

[jchokey]

I never have NPCs make independent social tests against Will obstacles. It's really not the intention of the rule. If the players want something out of the situation, then it's up to them to frame intent/task. If I need to force a result or compromise, I go to the Duel of Wits.

That's interesting to know and worth thinking about in my ongoing BW GMing.

I'm wondering though if you could clarify what you meant by "needing to force a result ". Seeking to have NPC negotiate a compromise is clear enough.... but I guess I'm just not 100% sure what you be mean by seeking to "force a result". Simply ensuring that all players (and the GM) agree narratively on what the outcome of the DOW is-- and that they are bound to follow it (even if they don't like it)?

[luke]

Sometimes I want the story to go in a particular direction. The Duel of Wits is the best vehicle for that force.

[jhkim]

Which, I think, would have been totally fine. You would have been 'walking away' (to appropriate a term from DoW) from the persuasion approach because you found the risk of failure unacceptable-- and instead chosen a different, more violent approach (with its own possible consequences).

I wouldn't have been dissatisfied by that at all--- because it would have meant that you were doing it *before* you rolled and discovered that you failed on the persuasion approach--- rather than doing it afterwards as a kind of 'end run' around the already established failure.
I think this seems to be the controversial bit that we're discussing -- i.e. that killing him seemed like an end run around an already established failure.

[jchokey]

I think this seems to be the controversial bit that we're discussing -- i.e. that killing him seemed like an end run around an already established failure.

Yeah, I think so. Or at least I think that's what what was bugging me about how I let things get resolved.... although until this thread I hadn't quite realized that was what it exactly what it was!

[eruditus]

Yeah, I tend to suggest (and sometimes discuss among the group) compromise before the roll and allow the player to decide how importnt it is to them. I think all rolls should have weight. And yeah, NPCs don't often make rolls against the characters.

Jim, were you dissatisfied with the NPC's death?

[eruditus]

ooo, oooo, consequently in the Flasehood test if he failed I would have said that he WASN'T LYING and he would stop spying you them. But then I think we established that I am a crazy hippy player.

[jchokey]

Yeah, I tend to suggest (and sometimes discuss among the group) compromise before the roll and allow the player to decide how importnt it is to them.

I think that's a really good idea and that's something I've already resolved to make a more conscious attempt to do consistently. I'm scribbling this down as a key "practice pointer to review" before future sessions. I should probably ask the other players to remind me to do it, too.


Jim, were you dissatisfied with the NPC's death?

As I mentioned before, it wasn't the *fact* of the NPC's death that bothered me. Nor was it the specific method (e.g. him being killed as a prisoner in cold blood, rather than in battle or something more heroic)--- although that did *surprise* me. (Especially since the character who did it, up until 3-4 sessions before had the belief, "Human life is sacred. I will not kill!":))

Really, my dissatisfaction really stemmed more from the way that I as a GM, handled the mechanics of the thing.

[zabieru]

ooo, oooo, consequently in the Flasehood test if he failed I would have said that he WASN'T LYING and he would stop spying you them. But then I think we established that I am a crazy hippy player.

This is a fine suggestion, though you'd need player buy-in... But I think I'll remember to ask the player about that for the next time I need a cool failure for a Falsehood test.

[eruditus]

This is a fine suggestion, though you'd need player buy-in... But I think I'll remember to ask the player about that for the next time I need a cool failure for a Falsehood test.

This is something I constatnly stumble over. When I offer counterstakes before the roll it ALWAYS rocks and almost everyone is happy. When I forget and add it in the players are like "WTF?" i apologize and I move on.

The only time I don't like heaping on story counterstakes/complications is when it's a link test since the assumption is that the consequences are already in place.

I can ask this elsewhere if you request but I think it falls under a similar discussion:

In a failed link test do GMs "force" the player to make the follow-up test? Or can the player back out? I don't have my books with me so if the answer is there go ahead and cite it.

Thanks,
- Don

[jhkim]

ooo, oooo, consequently in the Flasehood test if he failed I would have said that he WASN'T LYING and he would stop spying you them. But then I think we established that I am a crazy hippy player.
Hm. That seems like even moreso than what happened, it would be sidestepping my failure at the Persuasion rolll. i.e. We would have gotten what we wanted and persuaded him despite having failed at the roll.

Note that none of us were gunning to kill him - though we weren't completely shocked when Kalrun did so. If he hadn't done so one-sidedly, there probably would have been a big argument. Incidentally -- I think Kalrun's killing him was a very clear indication of his change of heart (i.e. changed belief), where he now takes safeguarding the church as his foremost goal.

[luke]

Ah, that's an excellent observation. Despite the rough patch with the social resolution, one player was able to make a clear statement about his character in the situation and in the big picture. To me, those opportunities are what the game is about.

[eruditus]

Ah, that's an excellent observation. Despite the rough patch with the social resolution, one player was able to make a clear statement about his character in the situation and in the big picture. To me, those opportunities are what the game is about.

True enough. So will there be consequences for the killing?

Recently I have been a little dissappointed in the players in one of our games to be a little too eager to murder people (yet consider themselves relatively good guys). They end up justifying all they want but in the end it's merely justification... if you know what I mean. The deaths seems shallow somehow.

Without being there was everyone equally "cooled" by the death?
- Don