Forced into a Duel of Wits

[Joshua Crowe]

I know we're in agreement and I like your 'in-game' solution. I just want to point out that it's really not up to the winners to enforce the terms of the DoW--adhering to the DoW terms is implicitly part of the rules (or maybe explicitly--I'll have to check the book). Everyone at the table has a role in sticking to the rules!
Pardon the plug, but I like this topic so much that I've made my latest podcast episode at Virtual Play (http://virtualplay.podbus.com) about Duels of Wit!
Mel

So I listened to that Episode of Virtual Play and it made DoW less clear to me.

It seems like you can effectively be forced into a Duel. If two players disagree and one wants to Duel and the other does not the only recourse is to shut up. At least that is the way it seems like the way it is described in the book.

So effectively a good talker can bully peoples minds around somewhat, is that correct? In the Merlin example it seemed like the characters could have been brought to a standstill. If Merlin is between them and the King and no one wants to Duel, they cannot get in, short of violence (correct?).

As far a GMing it seems like there should be a spirit to the DoW. If you get in a fight, you could die, or be severely crippled. It seems like a character should really put things out in a DoW. Like the emphasis should be more on how this Duel will change the story rather than shut a player down.

In the example earlier in the thread with the dwarves, it seems like the thief might feel like he was just shut down by the situation. It might behoove the GM to try to get players to put things on the line and allow that to develop a story. In the Dwarf example if the thief is stopped by the priest, he may get his "revenge" later on that holy man.

[Mel White]

So I listened to that Episode of Virtual Play and it made DoW less clear to me.

Yikes! Well, that's not good.


It seems like you can effectively be forced into a Duel. If two players disagree and one wants to Duel and the other does not the only recourse is to shut up. At least that is the way it seems like the way it is described in the book.

No one can be 'forced' into a DoW. The term used in the book is 'walk away' rather than 'shut up'. Walking away could involve actually physically leaving the scene, but it also could mean changing the subject or dropping the issue for the time being.
As far as 'effectively' being forced into a DoW, on the assumption that there is no other option to get the character's way--that's incorrect. There's always another way.

So effectively a good talker can bully peoples minds around somewhat, is that correct? In the Merlin example it seemed like the characters could have been brought to a standstill. If Merlin is between them and the King and no one wants to Duel, they cannot get in, short of violence (correct?).

As I tried to show in the Virtual Play episode, the refusal of one side or the other to a DoW still allowed the characters the option of finding another way to get what they wanted (in this case, entry into the King's chamber). When Merlin refused to engage in a DoW, the characters first tried quickly slipping into the chamber behind Merlin, before the door closed. They failed their Speed test against the guards' Observation. The characters then Persuaded the guards. So they did not resort to violence, but they could have--and I think would have, had the guards not been persuaded. I should point out, too, that Merlin's refusal to Duel was a stalling tactic on my part to allow the last group of player characters to arrive. I didn't want to have the Duel without all the players in the scene, but at the same time I wanted to allow the characters who had gotten to Camelot first the opportunity to do 'something' to take advantage of their early arrival. Once all the characters were present, Merlin would have engaged in a Duel.

As far a GMing it seems like there should be a spirit to the DoW. If you get in a fight, you could die, or be severely crippled. It seems like a character should really put things out in a DoW. Like the emphasis should be more on how this Duel will change the story rather than shut a player down.
In the example earlier in the thread with the dwarves, it seems like the thief might feel like he was just shut down by the situation. It might behoove the GM to try to get players to put things on the line and allow that to develop a story. In the Dwarf example if the thief is stopped by the priest, he may get his "revenge" later on that holy man.

I agree with that overall characterization--DoWs shouldn't 'shut down' another character. I suppose that's why my initial take on the dwarf tomb example was more lenient with the thief dwarf than is really appropriate in the rules and spirit of the DoW. Key points to remember are that no one can be forced into a DoW ;-) and that both players have to agree to the statements of purpose. So I can only be shut down by losing a DoW if I've agreed to a SoP that shuts me down. That's on me--but the potential player feelings of resentment are real, that's perhaps why players look for loopholes after losing a DoW. There are no loopholes! It's not a 'Wish' spell from D&D whose wording is subject to twist and interpretation to screw with the spellcaster. The DoW is an agreement between the players conducted through the actions of their characters.
At any rate, thanks for tuning in to Virtual Play!
Mel

[eruditus]

So there are three things that I have always found useful about a Duel of Wits:

1) (can you tell I like lists?) You cannot walk away from a DoW without facing the consequences. (as Mel suggested) it's not so much a social conflict system as a conflict mechanic between players (remember when I say player the GM is included). Thus if another player wants something out of the game that you don't want then the DoW is the direction to go.

2) Remember that compromise is the goal. It's not often that you get a complete shut out. Aim big in your goals and look for a compromise. Sometimes you can flesh out something that you both want just by discussion.

3) You have to be willing to move things forward and not be afraid of failure. Engage the DoW with a hearty excuberance and look forward to ways your character and the situation changes. Trust the DoW. Most DoWs that went flat or situations that went flat are always when the player isn't really willing to lose. Remember that this game is everyone's interests and participation so you can't expect to hold on to everything lest you lock other players' interests out of the game.

Is that helpful at all?
- Don

[jchokey]

Don:

Excellent points. In fact, I think I'm going to refer all of the other players in my current campaign to it.

[Mordaith]

Don hit it on the head right there.

Another collection of thoughts;

When a fight between two characters crops up and one side is not willing to just let it go, Duel of Wits is the best way to go about it. The way I see it, and correct me if I am wrong here gang, if one character stomps his foot down and says "I am not backing down" and another character says "Well that isn't fair, I don't want to back down either." Both the players are saying "What ever we're arguing over is important to our characters!" Duel of Wits should ensue.

Ask your players "Is this really important to your character? Do you have any beliefs about the subject?" Explore it if you think there may be hard feelings. If both parties still keep their heels in, then the duel is on. Make sure the stakes are high. The further away their desires are, the more room for comprise.

Stakes are another good way to stop "DoW Bullying" or at least deter it. For instance, the Dwarven Priest fiasco. (I may be forgetting some details) But it was basically some players wanted to loot something, the priest said "No! Bad Dwarfs!"

If I was playing the role of the looting players. When the Priest said "Don't Steal anything from here." I would say back (as my victory conditions) "I want you to shut up about this, and keep your high and mighty self-righteous nose out of my business forever!"

The Priest player now should consider what he stands to loose. What would a major or even minor comprise mean in this case?

-Mordaith