NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[cranberry]

I'm building an NPC adversary for a campaign (a cleric of Asmodeus), and their key Deity skill is deception.

But then it occurred to me that rolling to see if the NPC successfully deceived the PC's takes away player agency. That is, the player should be able to decide whether their PC believes the NPC or not.

So, from that perspective, social skill abilities for NPCs are a waste of a skill "slot". (Game mechanically speaking, not from a roleplay perspective)

Any thoughts on this? How do you/would you handle it?)

 

[Blue]

Do you make all of your PCs immune to Dragon Fear because it takes away player agency? How about the Vampire's Charm ability?

The answer is no, you don't, if you are like the vast majority of DMs.

So why would you make the PCs immune to other game mechanics than impact their character?

Deception on an NPC will most likely be there to counter Insight. Players want to make a check, your adversary's Deception is there to provide a DC. In no way does generating a DC for a player requested skill check take away their agency. Deception is a useful skill.

 

[cranberry]

Do you make all of your PCs immune to Dragon Fear because it takes away player agency? How about the Vampire's Charm ability?

The answer is no, you don't, if you are like the vast majority of DMs.

So why would you make the PCs immune to other game mechanics than impact their character?

Deception on an NPC will most likely be there to counter Insight. Players want to make a check, your adversary's Deception is there to provide a DC. In no way does generating a DC for a player requested skill check take away their agency. Deception is a useful skill.

I think deception is different from fear and similar effects in that fear is a gut reaction whereas deception operates at an intellectual level.

If the players can tell that an NPC is not being truthful, they should be able to react accordingly.

Another example would be NPC persuasion. Should an NPC be able to convince a PC to give up their prized magic item simply on a roll of the dice? I'm guessing most players wouldn't voluntarily do that.

 

[Hriston]

Is this for a D&D game? 5th Edition? If so, you are correct that "you believe them" is not the best way to narrate a successful result of an NPC's check. In fact, if a PC's belief is in doubt, rather than call for a check, the player has the authority to decide one way or the other because they are in charge of roleplaying their character.

But there are situations where proficiency in Deception can benefit an NPC. The first is in a contested check against a PC's Insight. A success for the NPC, in this case, isn't a "you believe them" but rather "they don't seem to be lying, but they take note of your suspicion and (some negative consequence for the party)". The players can still decide what their characters think.

The second is in a contest with a PC to influence another NPC. If they succeed, the other NPC does what they want instead of what the party wants.

 

[Blue]

I think deception is different from fear and similar effects in that fear is a gut reaction whereas deception operates at an intellectual level.

If the players can tell that an NPC is not being truthful, they should be able to react accordingly.

Sure. But that is missing half the equation.

The character lives in the world. Just like I can play a silver-tongued charactrer while I, the player, is not glib, or one who is learned in nature and survival where I am not, I can play a character who is more adept at sorting out who is telling the truth and who is lying than the player is.

So, if the player, having invested in the Insight skill, asks the DM if the character thinks the NPC is lying, what do you do?

Stop focusing on the case where the player things something -- that case is irrelevant to using the mechanics of the character. It's irrelevant to the discussion. So, ignoring everything about the player because in asking about mechanics you are inherently asking about the character only.

Another example would be NPC persuasion. Should an NPC be able to convince a PC to give up their prized magic item simply on a roll of the dice? I'm guessing most players wouldn't voluntarily do that.

Okay, you're now moving the goalpost from reactive to active, and coming up with an absurd example. Can a PC use persuasion to convince the King's Champion to give away his favorite magic item? No in the vast majority of cases. I'll be glad to discuss this one as well, but let's set the original question before expanding out.

 

[payn]

I'm building an NPC adversary for a campaign (a cleric of Asmodeus), and their key Deity skill is deception.

But then it occurred to me that rolling to see if the NPC successfully deceived the PC's takes away player agency. That is, the player should be able to decide whether their PC believes the NPC or not.

So, from that perspective, social skill abilities for NPCs are a waste of a skill "slot". (Game mechanically speaking, not from a roleplay perspective)

Any thoughts on this? How do you/would you handle it?)

A few thoughts... Role playing often means working within the meta. If a PC can roll to deceive with a skill, so can NPCs. However, I view social skills a bit more like hiding motives, information, or otherwise disposition or incline to agreement. Just because an NPC bluffed a PC, doesnt mean the PC has to trust them whole heartily. Social skills are not mind control, but a failed check leaves the target in a position of having only their suspicions and nothing concrete to act upon. I take that as a roleplay challenge, in which my agency feels intact. I know some players are just natrually suspisicous of everything and ready to kill any and every NPC to avoid any betrayl or deception. Thats not the type of game I personally enjoy. Once in awhile, my PC fails and is fooled and how I choose to play that outcome is my agency. YMMV.

I tend to run political intrigue heavy games so social situations often are nuanced things. Paizo's War for the Crown AP for example, has entire social situations such as honor ceremonies, legislative sessions, and affluent balls. Players are going to make numerous skill checks throughout the adventure/session with aims towards the goal of persuading allies, rebuffing enemies, and uncovering hidden information. So, building a complex series of checks can prevent the issue of a single failed check seeming like a lost session or PC mind control.

The presentation has everything to do with this too. There is a thread about amnesia whacking the PCs to stop them from ruining an end of game metaplot by engaging a faction too soon. The aim is to steer the players away until they can handle that point of the campaign. I think if you create a situation where some metaplot or end game point is revealed through a single skill/save check, you simply messed up, GMs need to be very mindful of this set up becasue its easier to fall into than it seems. It doesnt need to be campaign end game either, a simple single session adventure can go wildly off the rails if a GM tips their hand too soon and the players figure out by naturally playing the game. However, I think there is some onus on the players to play along with the GM as well. Othewrwise, yes if the game is a simple pass/fail state than skill portion of the game is a waste from GM side.

 

[GMMichael]

The character lives in the world. Just like I can play a silver-tongued charactrer while I, the player, is not glib, or one who is learned in nature and survival where I am not, I can play a character who is more adept at sorting out who is telling the truth and who is lying than the player is.

Interesting distinction here. The player is in charge of making the choices (persuading someone) while the dice are in charge of deciding quality (as though the character had a silver tongue). So what happens when the player makes a choice about quality? Or what if a quality decision of the dice limits the choices of the player?

So, if the player, having invested in the Insight skill, asks the DM if the character thinks the NPC is lying, what do you do?

Answer, "you can think whatever you want. Do you want to use Insight to read her body language?"

One fun thing about being the DM is that you can alter the facts to fit the narrative (sound familiar?). If the player decides that his character doesn't fall for the deity deception, the DM can make the deity's words truthful instead.

Stop focusing on the case where the player (thinks) something -- that case is irrelevant to using the mechanics of the character. It's irrelevant to the discussion. So, ignoring everything about the player because in asking about mechanics you are inherently asking about the character only.

There's no case in a DRPG in which the players are irrelevant. Unless there are no players. But then it's not a game.

Okay, you're now moving the goalpost from reactive to active, and coming up with an absurd example. Can a PC use persuasion to convince the King's Champion to give away his favorite magic item?

That's hardly absurd. It's another case of an NPC skill making decisions for the player, like deciding what's true and what isn't. A player is supposed to have direct control over a character's thoughts - the two operating with the same mind - but indirect control over the character's body . . .

Another example would be NPC persuasion. Should an NPC be able to convince a PC to give up their prized magic item simply on a roll of the dice? I'm guessing most players wouldn't voluntarily do that.

Let's remember why the dice gods are (often) consulted: when an outcome is in doubt. If it's doubtful that the PC would give up the item, sure, roll it. Be careful about the tone/precedent you set, though. Just like you don't want PCs taking fifteen minutes to go through each dungeon door for fear of magical traps, you also don't want them refusing to talk to any NPCs for fear of involuntarily giving up their prized possessions.

So, from that perspective, social skill abilities for NPCs are a waste of a skill "slot". (Game mechanically speaking, not from a roleplay perspective)

"Game mechanically speaking," a social skill may or may not have a lot to do - that depends on the skill list and the RPG (not specified in OP). If you want to tiptoe around what a character's mind does (making truth judgements) but not what the body does (climbing ropes safely), that's up to you. But you can ask any bard - social skill abilities can't be wasted.

 

[aco175]

Placing a spy into the PCs group of allies is both easy and hard. If you push too hard, the players are all waiting for the NPC to turn on them and know something is coming. They may play along and just wait or push back and push him out of the circle of trust. You can introduce several NPCs and later see what one the players gravitate to and like. Then, make that one the spy.

Along the way the NPC will come and go to make plans or something and you have him 'go buy supplies' or such and one player will become suspicious and think something is up. You come up with an excuse and the players does not buy it, so you have the PC make an Insight check vs Deception. In reality, you do not even need to do this since the player already thinks something is up- the player and thus the PC believe the NPC is lying so no roll is needed. The insight roll is the allow the Player to act on something through the PC, but the deception roll is to keep the player guessing.

Things also work if there are a couple NPCs to spread around actions that make the players think something is up. the NPCs come and go on personal trips and some come back acting different but have excuses such as someone died or there was a fire.

Have the actual spy save one of the PC's lives and almost die. Maybe charge in to attack the monster so the PCs can pull back. If he drops below 0hp then better. the PCs will likely save him and then trust him more. It will not be a big deal to bring in some more allies, who happen to be thugs loyal to the NPC, or follow his clue he overheard in town leading to a trap, I mean 'shortcut'.

 

[KYRON45]

I've never met a PC that didn't think an NPC was lying to them.

 

[Li Shenron]

But then it occurred to me that rolling to see if the NPC successfully deceived the PC's takes away player agency. That is, the player should be able to decide whether their PC believes the NPC or not.

Any thoughts on this? How do you/would you handle it?)

The players always decide, the DM doesn't tell them what they believe or not, it tells them whether the NPC is lying or telling the truth (or that it's inconclusive), and that itself may or may not be true.

The high NPC score is still their defence against attempts by PCs to figure it out. When the PC puts in all their bonuses and rolls a total 30 on Insight, and the NPC rolls a 31, the DM can simply tell the players that their PC did an awesome job at sensing their target, but actually tell them the wrong result (or can choose to tell them that even their best effort is inconclusive).