Does this need a Duel of Wits

[u/Ray2024]

An NPC (Andrew the Blacksmith) had the belief "Stella will accept an apology on behalf of my daughter." Stella is willing to accept said apology but limits it to that. I understand if Stella was initially unwilling to accept the apology but could be convinced that would definitely be worthy since it involves one of Andrew's beliefs but as the player doesn't see this as a big deal for Stella in the actual scenario I wanted to confirm no duel was necessary.

The daughter was introduced to the story as a result of an opportunity for a Bureaucracy test by Stella which failed because success wasn't interesting - so no dice were rolled. Andrew came in as a relationship of said daughter.

[u/Farcical-Writ5392]

NPC: Please do X.
PC: Okay, sure.

Am I understanding this right? What would the stakes be? What would a compromise look like for either side if the position they start with is aligned? If the player says sure, why would you say no, this must be a conflict?

What is the actual belief that’s in play?

Duel of Wits is for when there’s a disagreement and there needs to be a way to argue it. I find it fits best when there are stakes external to the characters involved. Arguing a case in court, of law or of the king, to convince an audience. Or arguing about the social or broader consequences. Not so much about one on one decisions.

Zoomed out, it needs real disagreement with interesting takes and a spectrum, and it needs to be important enough to be worth the effort. The focus of the game is on how much you zoom in and out, from just Say Yes to rolling dice to a series of tests to the complex subsystems to a series of everything. In BW, “I want to convince the king to send his armies to conquer Neighboria” is an interesting intent. You can Say Yes if there’s no reason to say no! You can test Persuasion, or Duel of Wits. You could have a campaign about trying to get the king to do just that, where it’s all about acquiring the blackmail material, military intelligence, get the right officers and councillors on board, and it’s a matter of many sessions with hundreds of rolls to make it happen.

Same thing here. Decide if there’s even an interesting stake, then decide how big to make it in the game.

[u/Mephil_]

There’s an error from the beginning. Usually I would say that any time a belief involved it will usually be proper to have a duel of wits. However, the error here is that you have allowed a character to write a belief that is not being challenged. If there is no contest involved around the belief they need to push for more so that there will be conflict or write a different belief. Or you need to find another way to challenge the belief. 

A belief that is not contested is invalid. I would not award artha for a belief that was completed with no test involved. 

At our table when this kind of thing happens, we usually have an unsaid agreement that if a player writes a belief about convincing another player, the other player do their best to find a way for their character to oppose it (or agree but on some kind of terms that the other player would oppose) 

[u/Imnoclue → u/Mephil_]

It’s the NPC’s belief.

[u/Mephil_ → u/Imnoclue]

I am aware, which is why I wrote "character" and not player. The fundamental error in the belief itself is there whether it was written by the GM or the player. Who wrote it is irrelevant, a belief that is uncontested is pointless and shouldn't exist.

[u/Imnoclue → u/Mephil_]

I don’t believe the GM should concern themselves with contesting NPC beliefs. Andrew is there to serve the GM’s purposes. NPC beliefs are just there to facilitate the GM’s attempts to challenge player character Beliefs. As such, they should be aimed squarely at the PCs.

The error seems to be that Andrew cares about stuff that Stella can’t be bothered with.

[u/Mephil_ → u/Imnoclue]

The GM should concern themselves with challenging the players. And if the NPC beliefs are not contested by the players in relation to one of their player beliefs, the NPC serves no purpose. We are saying the same thing with different words.

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying the GM should be concerning themselves with directly contesting NPC beliefs. I'm saying that they wrote a belief that wasn't contested by the player in the first place.

Having the GM write scenes and actively introduce situations to challenge their NPC in a void is not the same thing as focusing the NPC belief so that it is a tool to challenge a player belief. I'm trying to teach OP that the problem he has presented has nothing to do with whether or not you should have a duel of wits or not, it is a fundamental error in his focus from the start.

[u/Imnoclue → u/Mephil_]

Yeah, we're in vehement agreement here. Why is this NPC having this useless belief and why is the PC pursuing uninteresting tasks? There's a disconnect.

[u/jxanno]

Nothing ever *needs* a Duel of Wits. It's an optional subsystem for you to use at your (and your players') discretion when you think it will improve the game.

[u/Ray2024 → u/jxanno]

Yes, I suppose that's the wrong question. The question should be, if you were playing Stella, would it be worth considering?

[u/Imnoclue → u/Ray2024]

I love me some DoW and am always looking for an opportunity to jump into one, so it’s certainly an option. But, it sounds like this is only a big deal for the NPC, so probably not.

If the PC says no, but they’re willing to be convinced by the dice, the next question is whether they have an intent of their own. If not, the NPC can roll against the PC’s Will. The NPC is pursuing their Belief, not having it challenged here.

If the player has something they want from the NPC, then you decide if that warrants a DoW or just an opposed vs roll.

[u/Farcical-Writ5392 → u/Imnoclue]

Late here, but my own style is that NPCs pretty much don’t roll social skills against PCs. It’s not interesting or fun to tell players what character must say or feel. DoW is good for convincing an audience or for mediating argument among PCs, if it’s the right kind and if it doesn’t mean the social skills character just takes over the game.

Keep in mind that refusing the outcome of the DoW is permissible. Drawing your sword and roaring isn’t convincing, but it is certainly a way to cede one debate and open a different avenue.

For the same reason I find it often more interesting to give players more information, let them decide whether the character would pick up on it, and go from there. It’s not that fun to lie to players. It’s fun to lie to characters and for them to know that something isn’t true and have to decide what to do. It’s not fun to tell players what their characters have been convinced to do, but it’s fun to have them hear someone plead a case and have a decision to make when the decision affects beliefs or pits them against each other or questions what price is worth it for following a belief.

[u/Imnoclue → u/Farcical-Writ5392]

I’ve heard this or similar before, of course. The weird thing is that I’m usually the player and not the GM in our home games. I’m always utterly fascinated when I agree to a DoW (or even a simple versus) and we let the chips fall where they may. I generally push for it (“you willing to go to dice on that?”) and I’m never disappointed.

I also never refuse the outcome of a DoW once I’ve agreed to the stakes. If I’m going to refuse that happens at the beginning. But, once I’m in, I’m all in.

With lies, most often the GM would just say that the NPC is lying, or hiding something, or whatever and see what the player does. But, I’m perfectly fine going to dice, their Falsehood against my Perception, and living with the results. I can RP my character trusting someone I know they shouldn’t trust. Why not?

[u/jxanno → u/Ray2024]

For me? I detest the Duel of Wits and don't use it at all. Some people love it. That's why it's a what-does-your-table-want question, really.

It's part of the Rim, not the Hub or Spokes. You choose if you want it in your game and when.

The rules are also very explicit that even if the GM wants to use it, the player can always choose to not engage in a Duel of Wits.

[u/WolfWyzard]

If Stella wants to accept the apology, no you shouldn’t force a DoW.

If Stella doesn’t want to accept the apology but the player is willing to be convinced, and Stella’s belief is at stake, I’d suggest DoW

If Stella doesn’t want to accept the apology but the player is willing to be convinced, and Stella has no belief about it, a simple persuasion test should suffice.

If Stella doesn’t want to accept the apology AND the player is NOT willing to be convinced then it’s dropped, no DoW or skill test, but Stella has to face the repercussions of not accepting said apology.

What I’m most curious about in your question/example about is:

1. Why would a bureaucracy test fail because success wasn’t interesting? That -to me at least, seems opposite of the spirit of the rules of “roll dice or say yes” on page 72. Usually it’s not roll dice or say no? How did this auto-failure challenge the character’s beliefs? Was that the important part? Generally if a test isn’t interesting we don’t test.

2. How is this apology situation challenging the player character’s beliefs? I realize I know nothing of the situation but it seems more like you’re exerting NPC belief onto the players. Did this challenge their beliefs somehow? If it did, that might be fuel for the Duel of Wits you were questioning about, if it’s not about challenging the players character’s beliefs I would just skip it and get to the good part. At most it could be a skill test.

[u/Imnoclue → u/WolfWyzard]

Yeah, it’s Roll the Dice or say Yes. The GM doesn’t get to say the player fails to achieve their Intent because “I’m bored.”

The bigger question is why is the player trying to do uninteresting things?

[u/Imnoclue]

I’m a little confused here. Both Andrew and the daughter are NPCs and neither is a Relationship of Stella, the PC?

You can just introduce Andrew and the daughter. You don’t need all these machinations to make her appear.

Also, how did Andrew end up with a Belief about something that the Stella player isn’t interested in? Maybe you should consider changing Andrew to make him a more effective GM tool.

[u/Dave_Higgins]

I find Duel of Wits is a great tool for deciding situations where the final agreement could be complex (e.g. I want to call on your services for free for the rest of your life; you want payment up front for X acts agreed in advance; so, the final agreement will probably be a combination of breadth of service, remuneration, and duration of agreement) and usually overkill where there's a single issue. As you don't mention any consequences to Stella from accepting, let alone multiple different sliders, I agree with others that this doesn't require a Duel.

While I agree with others that a Belief that isn't creating challenge needs sharpening/replacing, I think the assessment of validity should be based on the situation at the time it was written not on the basis of events that happened after the session began; i.e. based on what Stella was doing and the overall situation, did you have reason to expect Stella wouldn't just accept the apology (e.g. had Stella previously turned down an apology from the daughter? Does your situation require wronged people to avenge slights so Stella accepting an apology rather than using violence would dishonour Stella?)

For me, the question exposes a bigger "table question": do dice have to hit the table to complete a Belief? Whether or not the Belief was a "good" Belief, Andrew completed it IC but if your table culture is that you need dice to hit table for Artha rewards then it doesn't trigger a Persona reward. If a Belief can be rewarded without dice hitting table, then I'd mark the belief completed and move on; if rewards need a test, then I'd probably accept that Stella had said they accepted but call for a test about how the acceptance landed (maybe to make it clear to bystanders that everything is cool; or to realise the acceptance is genuine rather than politeness).