Re: General OOC Chatter Thread

[Luecian LongBow]

I'm much newer to this but I don't think the main issue Baelon mentioned is with objectives but rather with sharing the motivation behind the objective. If the objective between Ben and Baelon had been friendship, I think many of the same questions could have entered Ben's mind. You could have been intriguing him with friendship behind a motivation to later siphon important information or influence the House Marsten decision's in this case. Perhaps the exchange ends a bit differently but I'm not sure it would have definitely been dramatically different.

We didn't handle it as an intrigue(although we easily could have) but Nathaniel approached Luecian to essentially ambush and assassinate Old Jack. Being new and with little background of his PC(mostly that he seemed a clever charming roguish type) I was not opposed to killing the bandit, I was going to do that in a battle anyway with House Dulver forces. If I could kill him and weaken them before that battle, more the better(this guy had been pillaging Dulver lands potentially killing possible friends, family or acquaintances of Luecian). My concern was while I understood his objective(Service-Luecan track and kill Old Jack), I had no real knowledge on his real motivation. Perhaps it was all on face value, perhaps he was secretly allied with House Frey and I was being led to a trap, perhaps he had influence on local bandits also and Old Jack or Benjen Frey were rivals to his influence. In essence, I was open to the service but concerned that I could end up being his pawn or patsy in the scenario. In another outcome perhaps I show up and the situation is staged, perhaps I accidentally kill Lord Bracken trying to reclaim his goods after outlaws had previously stolen them. Thus his trickery and my confusion sparks a war or fued between House Dulver and Bracken plus negative attention from the crown. Perhaps a step further someone in his employ is aiming at me once I kill my target to ensure Luecian's silence. He may have thought I drug out the exchange a bit longer than needed but I was definitely considering if I was about to get hustled by a more veteran player right out the gate...

[Septon Arlyn]

I think that is perfectly reasonable. But in essence you guys did an intrigue without rolling for it. Now if he wanted you to do something completely against your code. (Kill a presumed innocent to tie up one of his loose ends.) Then I could see where a more "
combat like"
intrigue might be viable.

[Luecian LongBow]

Definitely, in retrospect I think he and reader were giving my new PC a good moment to shine and accomplish something(much appreciated)...but I wasn't aware of that until almost the end when he laid the scenario out that reader had approved. So we had a few uncertain exchanges prior to him flushing that out where I was definitely uncertain.

Edit: At the time I was mostly worried he was sending me on a suicide mission.Most of the other is just later speculation.

[Baelon Drakeson]

If I have made anyone unhappy with my tp or intrigue, I'm sorry. I was not aware of any 'hammering' on my part.

The term was in regard to using charm to get a few big hits in then switching to the technique that will get the outcome you want for the last round or two when victory is relatively assured. "
Charmhammer"
is misleading - Charm is probably the easiest technique to abuse (because it "
double dips"
on Persuasion), but they can all be used the same way. Honestly, I'm not sure it's all that bad - I mean, it's realistic to try to warm somebody up to you before trying to bargain/convince/seduce them. Things get a bit weirder with taunt and intimidate, but they interact weirdly with the rest of the intrigue system in general... if we didn't have such time restrictions, I would say just do two intrigues, first to charm and then to bargain/convince/seduce. I think that's how Charm was meant to be used, really (and how I intended Baelon to work) but with the pragmatic restrictions on intrigues that doesn't work any more, and without technique switching Charm is much less efficient - it takes multiple days to charm someone then bargain/convince/seduce. Better to just specialize in, say, Convince (which has the most flexible outcome) and do in one day what the charmer has to do in two.

I'm much newer to this but I don't think the main issue Baelon mentioned is with objectives but rather with sharing the motivation behind the objective. If the objective between Ben and Baelon had been friendship, I think many of the same questions could have entered Ben's mind. You could have been intriguing him with friendship behind a motivation to later siphon important information or influence the House Marsten decision's in this case. Perhaps the exchange ends a bit differently but I'm not sure it would have definitely been dramatically different.

Perhaps it is true that the same mistrustful thoughts could have come up - but in this case I can say that is not true, as Ben and I discussed it afterwards. My main point was that not knowing your opponent's objective raises the stakes, and that gets people more cautious, and thus more likely to react in interesting ways. There are no "
safe"
intrigues or negotiations. Yes, it makes it harder for the intriguer to get their way, but I don't see that as a terribly bad thing... in many ways intrigue is far more dangerous than combat, but without the same kind of social cost for initiating it.

[Theomore Tullison]

I wonder if we maybe should split the intrigue discussion into a different thread, but I have a few opinions:

1. Hidden Objectives.
This is going to be my position, like Nathan, I will never hide from the player what my objective is, I may hide it from other players, and Theo may hide it from the other character. I am also going to assume that anyone hiding their objective from me when engaged with Theomore in intrigue believes that revealing it would make it more likely to make Theomore quit than otherwise. I am also going to assume that anyone hiding their objective are attempting to gain an OOC advantage over me by doing so. I imagine that most of the time, those assumptions will be mostly wrong, but that does not change the fact that is how my feelings on the matter will be. Long story short, hide your objective and odds are that you winning the intrigue is not among the possible outcomes I will allow.

In more broader terms, I consider the objectives to be narrative instruments, and I do not think that just because a character is defeated in intrigue, he should be compelled to do something he has no inclination of doing whatsoever. If you keep your objective known, then you give the other player a chance to say: Hey, I am not willing to let my character be compelled to do this, and thus initiate dialogue on what might be an appropriate objective.

Additionally, I would say that the distinction between deception and persuasion is worth noting. In fact, I would say that to hide your objective (or terms of defeat if you will) should not be possible with persuasion, since persuasion assumes that you are upfront about what you wish from the other party IC, or at least what you seek to be the direct outcome of the intrigue. The moment your character attempts to hide this IC, deception comes into play IMO. It's right there in the ability descriptions. That doesn't mean that you always hide what you want when using deception, since you could use lies to convince another of something you are very upfront about trying to convince him to.

2. Choice of technique.
If anyone with persuasion 5 (or famous) pulls the charm opener on Theo, and then switches technique. Then one of two things happens:
1. I make Theo quit the intrigue on OOC principle.
2. If Theo is defeated, I will unilaterally declare that the Treacherous quality is a carte blanche to subvert whatever the defeat condition may be.
If someone uses the charm opener with some other objective than friendship, see point 1.
It should also be noted that since Theo is not about to risk you getting +1D in the next intrigue, so charm will result in a yield or quit outcome (unless of course, Theo wins). Options 1 and 2 generally also applies if anyone starts out with their best technique and then switches to the one they want to force defeat with.

I believe that the technique must fit the objective, and in my opinion, it's rather simple, the character with Persuasion 5, and 3 in the other intrigue stats may be more effective than the character with Persuasion 4 and 4 in the other intrigue stats if he is allowed to lead with charm and then switch technique, that's good enough reason to be strict about what's appropriate before we even bring up the subject of what Persuasion 5 does to intrigue.

3. Yielding and such.
That's actually part OOC reason and part IC reason. The OOC reason is that I do not like competition between players, between characters, sure, to the degree both players are comfortable with it, I and Daveth kinda had that, but we didn't quite manage to find a way both players were comfortable with, so that ended. The IC reason is that Theo is a pragmatist, why do the zero-sum game when you can get something you want in return for something you are willing to part with to get it? Odds are that in the future, that person will be more inclined to deal with you again. Plus, you get something you want, quite possibly exactly what you want, which is no guarantee if you play it out in full.

4. Insulating yourself from intrigue because you are weak at it.
That's a coin with two sides. If you give yourself an achilles heel at intrigue, then you should accept that someone will seek to exploit it, and allow it to happen once or twice. But that should not mean that it's an open invitation for everyone to just roll over you. I personally find it quite acceptable that characters weaker at intrigue will gang up on someone stronger to even out the odds. Though only to even out the odds. If the more capable party in an intrigue brings a friend, I would expect the other to refuse engagement.

On a final note, this is about making a good story, and intrigue and scheming is part of that. Manipulation is part of that. However, we also need to accept that characters are built according to different design principles, some are more min-maxed than others. And there's a difference between character A being better than B in intrigue because A spent more resources on being better and A being better than B because A put all the XP into persuasion and B didn't. There's no black and white answer here.

[Theomore Tullison]

I am also of the opinion that charm (and seduce) should be keyed off something else than persuasion (awareness perhaps?) when determining influence to avoid the double-dip tendencies.

[Nathaniel Mason]

They're talking about you, Corrine! Aren't you flattered?

Not really, since they seem to be implying I don't play fair because I use my best skill.

If I have made anyone unhappy with my tp or intrigue, I'm sorry. I was not aware of any 'hammering' on my part.

I want to be clear that I was not speaking of anyone in particular.

Let me explain, in my view, what it is, and why I dislike it so much.

Let us pretend (purely for example) that a character has a 5 in Persuasion, 3 B in Charm and nothing else. (2s in everything else, and no other specialties). By using the 'Charm Hammer', this character may win most of their Intrigues simply by using the Charm technique without any need to invest in any other abilities or specialties. It is unique because it's damage keys off of Persuasion. It would be like a weapon who's damage keys off of Fighting in Combat, making most other weapons completely redundant.

If the person wants to win a debate, are they using Convince to put forth their considered argument? No, because that would mean only 2 Influence per DoS. Much better to use Charm at 5 Influence per DoS to beat them down and then finish them off with Convince. It becomes even stranger when they spend the Intrigue 'charming' their opponent, only to finish with Intimidate, Taunt or Incite.

In my view... this is an exploit of the rules. Charm is already powerful in it's ability to shift disposition and give a +1D towards the next Intrigue. Using the Charm technique this way almost renders investing in other techniques (and their underlying abilities) unnecessary. I will disagree with Baelon that they 'can all be used the same way' as every other technique requires investing in a second ability.

The intent of Charm is to make people like you better and give you an edge in your next Intrigue. It's intent was not to be used as a universal hammer to win Intrigues in any situation.

[Athelstan]

I am also of the opinion that charm (and seduce) should be keyed off something else than persuasion (awareness perhaps?) when determining influence to avoid the double-dip tendencies.

Cunning sounds like it should have something to do or affect some thing other than adding to the Intrigue Defense or 1 combat maneuver.

I agree on the Charm intended purpose that Nathaniel is putting forward.

[Septon Arlyn]

Honestly I think that the increase is DR is strong enough of an advantage for charm (speaking as someone who could be a charm hammer sort of PC) I think that maybe a house rule to remove that effect (I do not know of anyone who has gained advantage from it yet) or making the damage based off of awareness rank as theomore suggested, would be enough to bring the technique in line with other intrigue techniques. Or just leave it as it is.

As far as the ??? I think it is fine to use it or not use it, Depending on the circumstance. Again with Theomore I'm leaning toward making that be a deception skill when used. Or maybe just PMing your target if you do not want the greater audience to gain OOC knowledge of your plans.

[Athelstan]

I still think Cunning would make more sense than Awareness.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I am also of the opinion that charm (and seduce) should be keyed off something else than persuasion (awareness perhaps?) when determining influence to avoid the double-dip tendencies.

I agree with the majority of what you have said in your larger post.

However, I do not have a problem with Charm (or Seduce) keying off persuasion when the techniques are used as intended.

[Septon Arlyn]

I am also of the opinion that charm (and seduce) should be keyed off something else than persuasion (awareness perhaps?) when determining influence to avoid the double-dip tendencies.

Cunning sounds like it should have something to do or affect some thing other than adding to the Intrigue Defense or 1 combat maneuver.

I agree on the Charm intended purpose that Nathaniel is putting forward.

cunning is used as damage for the bargain technique already. Also it is a useful skill to have for skill checks (in who dun it situations like we are in now I expect reader has some cunning options planned out.)

When using charm or seduction I can see awareness as preserving how well what you are doing as working in changing their attitude toward you

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Dang.

This stuff is one reason why I've been so reluctant to intrigue other PCs. It seems like it just leads to gnashing of teeth.

[Athelstan]

Yes, but the damage dealt should key off something else like Cunning.

The problem is Persuasion is an ability that does damage based on Charm, while the other ones do not.

It's like swinging swords with fighting 5, and dealing damage = to fighting, and then on top of that getting +1D next time you fight that opponent.

[Theomore Tullison]

Bargain and Incite works off cunning, also have a look at what high cunning can do for you if you put it to good use. The sections on logic and memory (p. 61) offers some sexy options, might be that only the wrecker had the dice pool to take advantage of some of it this far, though he frequently did. So I am not too sure about that. If it wasn't for the existence of eloquent, I'd actually suggest language for persuasion and awareness for seduction. Awareness only influences taunt, which is rather limited in scope (a candidate for the least used in my experience), and it feels the most appropriate to me.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Or maybe just PMing your target if you do not want the greater audience to gain OOC knowledge of your plans.

I would very much agree that a Intrigue objective need not (or ever) be something for public consumption. The world at large can figure it out for themselves by observing the results. I would be fine with a PM.

Dang.

This stuff is one reason why I've been so reluctant to intrigue other PCs. It seems like it just leads to gnashing of teeth.

Don't let this put you off. All of this is OOC. IC Intrigues are a great way of progressing plot and often lead excellent story not matter if you win or lose.

Bargain and Incite works off cunning, also have a look at what high cunning can do for you if you put it to good use. The sections on logic and memory (p. 61) offers some sexy options, might be that only the wrecker had the dice pool to take advantage of some of it this far, though he frequently did.

I have 4 +1B in Cunning, but I have used it in my Information Gathering moreso than my Intrigues.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Oh, I'll intrigue all day long against NPCs. Heck, Gwyn was built to be an intrigue/schemer. I wouldn't ignore more than half my concept.

But it just never sat right to me, using rules to coerce another PC.

It seems like it just leads to discord.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

I personally don't perceive it as causing any actual problems of itself, but it might be better to shift the discussion to the Mechanical Discussion thread.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Additionally, I would say that the distinction between deception and persuasion is worth noting. In fact, I would say that to hide your objective (or terms of defeat if you will) should not be possible with persuasion, since persuasion assumes that you are upfront about what you wish from the other party IC, or at least what you seek to be the direct outcome of the intrigue. The moment your character attempts to hide this IC, deception comes into play IMO. It's right there in the ability descriptions. That doesn't mean that you always hide what you want when using deception, since you could use lies to convince another of something you are very upfront about trying to convince him to.

I completely disagree. Concealing one's objective is an OOC act, not an IC act and thus shoudl have no bearing on attribute used. A character lying in the RP is what calls for deception - whether it be bargaining in bad faith, charming someone with false flattery, seducing someone you have no interest in, or intimidating with no intent to harm. In general with persuasion the RP should give some indication of the objective - but that is an IC indication, not an OOC indication. Those have significant differences in impact (ideally none of us would have any OOC knowledge, but that is sadly not feasible).

2. Choice of technique.
If anyone with persuasion 5 (or famous) pulls the charm opener on Theo, and then switches technique. Then one of two things happens:
1. I make Theo quit the intrigue on OOC principle.
2. If Theo is defeated, I will unilaterally declare that the Treacherous quality is a carte blanche to subvert whatever the defeat condition may be.
If someone uses the charm opener with some other objective than friendship, see point 1.
It should also be noted that since Theo is not about to risk you getting +1D in the next intrigue, so charm will result in a yield or quit outcome (unless of course, Theo wins). Options 1 and 2 generally also applies if anyone starts out with their best technique and then switches to the one they want to force defeat with.

So.... Theo can't be charmed, ever. "
Theo won't risk you getting +1D in the next intrigue"
? That is, in my opinion, a horrendous use of OOC knowledge to decide IC actions. Theo does not know anything about the +1D. You the player won't risk it. Theo does not know what technique is being used unless you use Read Target - that was, if memory serves, a point you made during our one and only intrigue (back in BITW).

I believe that the technique must fit the objective, and in my opinion, it's rather simple, the character with Persuasion 5, and 3 in the other intrigue stats may be more effective than the character with Persuasion 4 and 4 in the other intrigue stats if he is allowed to lead with charm and then switch technique, that's good enough reason to be strict about what's appropriate before we even bring up the subject of what Persuasion 5 does to intrigue.

In general, I completely agree. However the pragmatic limitation of how many intrigues can occur between two characters in one game day means that charm becomes an impractical technique otherwise.

3. Yielding and such.
That's actually part OOC reason and part IC reason. The OOC reason is that I do not like competition between players, between characters, sure, to the degree both players are comfortable with it, I and Daveth kinda had that, but we didn't quite manage to find a way both players were comfortable with, so that ended.

Having competition between players is, I agree, to be avoided. However, behind the scenes OOC arrangements actually make it a player vs. player negotiation rather than a character vs. character negotiation.

The IC reason is that Theo is a pragmatist, why do the zero-sum game when you can get something you want in return for something you are willing to part with to get it? Odds are that in the future, that person will be more inclined to deal with you again. Plus, you get something you want, quite possibly exactly what you want, which is no guarantee if you play it out in full.

Yes, there is risk involved with intrigue. Victory is not guaranteed, and you might not get the outcome you wanted. As far as I am concerned, that is a good thing. No one should win all the time.

On a final note, this is about making a good story, and intrigue and scheming is part of that. Manipulation is part of that. However, we also need to accept that characters are built according to different design principles, some are more min-maxed than others. And there's a difference between character A being better than B in intrigue because A spent more resources on being better and A being better than B because A put all the XP into persuasion and B didn't. There's no black and white answer here.

Finally something we completely agree on!

[Nathaniel Mason]

Having competition between players is, I agree, to be avoided. However, behind the scenes OOC arrangements actually make it a player vs. player negotiation rather than a character vs. character negotiation.

I am curious how you manage behind the scenes OOC arrangements and negotiations AND keep your Intrigue objective hidden from the other player.

"
Let's meet up in a thread. I want to have an Intrigue with you."


"
Sure. What about?"


"
I'm not going to tell you."


"
Um... yah... well... no. I don't think so."

In general, I completely agree. However the pragmatic limitation of how many intrigues can occur between two characters in one game day means that charm becomes an impractical technique otherwise.

So you say, but I don't see it. The Disposition bump is permanent until some future event, and the +1D is kept indefinitely until used. Your could still have +1Ds from characters gained in Story 1. How is that in any way impractical? So you can't Charm and Convince someone to do something in the same time slot? You can do it later in the day, or the next day, or save the +1D until you really need it months from now.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Having competition between players is, I agree, to be avoided. However, behind the scenes OOC arrangements actually make it a player vs. player negotiation rather than a character vs. character negotiation.

I am curious how you manage behind the scenes OOC arrangements and negotiations AND keep your Intrigue objective hidden from the other player.

"
Let's meet up in a thread. I want to have an Intrigue with you."


"
Sure. What about?"


"
I'm not going to tell you."


"
Um... yah... well... no. I don't think so."

That's not really what I was talking about there - but yes, that is a possibility. However:
1) I don't see why intrigues should need to be announced in advance. It should be assumed that any IC meeting could include one. Just like any IC meeting could include combat.
2) That is using OOC reasoning to avoid an IC situation, which seems to me to be inappropriate metagaming. I don't know about you, but I have people come talk to me all the time when I wish they wouldn't... it's just not something we can fully control. We can try to avoid people, but we have to put effort into it - that might mean Awareness to see them coming, Stealth to keep them from seeing you... something like that.

What I was actually talking about in that quote was players negotiating OOC what the outcome of a particular scene would be, rather than letting the scene evolve naturally with RP &
intrigue.

In general, I completely agree. However the pragmatic limitation of how many intrigues can occur between two characters in one game day means that charm becomes an impractical technique otherwise.

So you say, but I don't see it. The Disposition bump is permanent until some future event, and the +1D is kept indefinitely until used. Your could still have +1Ds from characters gained in Story 1. How is that in any way impractical? So you can't Charm and Convince someone to do something in the same time slot? You can do it later in the day, or the next day, or save the +1D until you really need it months from now.

My apologies for speaking loosely - I should know better. I meant 'inefficient' not 'impractical' - or I suppose "
impractical for short term or time sensitive goals"
would probably be closer to what I was thinking at the time.

[Nathaniel Mason]

What I was actually talking about in that quote was players negotiating OOC what the outcome of a particular scene would be, rather than letting the scene evolve naturally with RP &
intrigue.

I guess I am just not seeing the necessity for hidden objectives.

Sometimes things can be accomplished with pure roleplay. My thread with Luecian is an example of that. Was there other stuff going on in the background? Absolutely. But even if we went to a mechanical solution (Objective: Kill Benjen Frey), revealing that Objective would not reveal any of that background machinations.

A certain degree of OOC openness also promotes good narrative. (Certainly moreso than keeping everything so close to the chest to the point where no-one wants to deal with you.)

Lets say you send me a PM saying. I'd like to have an Intrigue with you. If you are completely opaque about your objectives, as I have stated, probably nothing is going to happen, and ambushing me in a thread will not get you any farther.

However, if you say. I need some information about 'such and such' and I am pretty sure you have that information.

Maybe I don't have the information. OOC I will tell you.

Perhaps I am perfectly fine with giving you the information, so we do that thread and you get what you want.

Perhaps I expect something minor in return. (+1 Disposition for being so forthcoming.) If you are okay with that... we are still fine.

Perhaps I want something much more uncomfortable. Baelon, I am happy to give you the information you want, but I think Gwyn has information I need, so I'd like you to obtain from her. You might be okay with that, you might not. If your not then I don't see a problem moving to an Intrigue and playing it out. Winner gets what they want.

Perhaps I want something really uncomfortable. (Baelon is attractive ) We can play that out too.

In each of these cases, good narrative can be forthcoming. In none of them was the objective of either character hidden from the player (even if the motivations behind those objectives may well be.)

I really like to think I am a reasonable player, and I think I want what everyone wants: good narrative. As you have said, while the characters might be in competition, the players are hopefully collaborative. I don't think hidden objectives further collaborative narration in any way.

[Baelon Drakeson]

In short, knowing an opponent's objective (OOC knowledge) affects the IC actions - it affects the cost/benefit analysis behind staying or quitting.
In general, what type of objective is in play should be quite easy to figure out from the RP - Friendship, Service, Information, etc.
In general, unless Deception is involved the RP should all be true - including the objective information.
However, knowing all of the details is another matter altogether. Knowing what particular piece of information is being sought - perhaps not. Perhaps the person is trying to put you at ease, get you chatting about a related topic, hoping you will let your guard down and blurt it out... in which case, no, you should not know what is specifically being sought. If they are trying to reason with you about why you should tell them, then yes, you should.

As for arranging intrigues ahead of time, I don't have a problem with that, I just don't think it should be necessary.
If you are in an intrigue that you don't want to be a part of, that is what Quit is for... but it should be an IC decision for IC reasons, not based on OOC information.

I have the opposite question - where is the IC harm in a hidden objective?

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Can this discussion be shifted to Mechanical Discussion, please?

[Nathaniel Mason]

In general, what type of objective is in play should be quite easy to figure out from the RP - Friendship, Service, Information, etc.

Then there should be no problem stating the objective.

I have the opposite question - where is the IC harm in a hidden objective?

Well.. it depends on the IC situation, certainly.

But the most substantial harm is when the player feels they have been hoodwinked or taken advantage in some way unfairly. In which case their participation IC diminishes or they leave the game completely.

I doubt we will ever agree on this... and I think we have both made our positions clear.

If you wish to hide your objectives, you are welcome to. But Intrigues require two people, and if you do choose to hide your objective with me, I will not be one of them. That is not a criticism. I understand your reasons even I don't agree with them. And it is not call to action. If other players have no problem with it, that is their choice. It is simply a statement. I am not so arrogant as to speculate on whether the IC interactions between Baelon and Nathan that will never happen as a result constitutes IC harm or not. Since Baelon and Nathan have yet to meet, even after all this time, probably very little.

Can this discussion be shifted to Mechanical Discussion, please?

No worries. I am done on this subject. But to be fair, this is a more philosophical discussion than simple mechanics, and I don't see how this discussion does not fit under OOC chatter since it is about the OOC dynamics of Intrigues and not in any way about specific mechanical rules.

Edit: Certainly the discussion surrounding Persuasion specifics should go to mechanics.

[Sponsored content]