NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TaranTheWanderer]

OT: So I finalized the stats of the Cleric mentioned in the OP, and asked the Copilot, AI attached to Microsoft Edge to create a picture of a dwarf cleric of Asmodeus.

It returned a picture with a dwarf holding a mace with a pentagram on it, but also had crosses on it's stole and was carrying a stylized cross in the other hand.

I didn't ask for an indecisive cleric of Asmodeus who was considering converting....We're a long way from AI taking over the world.....

Crosses are a symbol of suffering. Hence the term “a cross we must bear”. So, the cleric could be carrying crosses in a more sinister way.

As well, crosses are a Christian symbol. I never knew how it could even work as a symbol in a fantasy world. Without the Christian connotations, a cross is a symbol of suffering instead of a symbol of overcoming suffering.

 

[GMMichael]

Reminds me of Dukat from Deep Space Nine. Nobody believed their own lies like that guy!

I can think of a couple competitors. Heck, an entire class of people comes to mind . . .

As well, crosses are a Christian symbol. I never knew how it could even work as a symbol in a fantasy world. . .

Well, there's the old-fashioned way, as a statement of, "hey, don't run away from your masters or commit robbery." Being such a simple symbol, it could be used for just about anything. Anything starting with the letter T. Taxation, treachery, testes . . . but let's tie this back to the OP.

The symbol of a crucifix, or any symbol of capital punishment, might be a role-playing excuse for an NPC's intimidation to work. "My character wouldn't just give in to that NPC! Oh, he's threatening crucifixion? Yeah, I can see Bonan giving in to that."

 

[Blue]

No, you don't cut a player. But you do threaten, bribe, mislead, and reward a player. As I said earlier, player and character act with the same mind. So a rule that says a PC is deceived affects both player and character, to one degree or another.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that the game mechanics don't apply directly to a player, they apply to a character.

Tell that to Obi Wan Kenobi.

Okay, I will. Because we are talking purely the persuasion skill, not The Force. And it's to a PC, so let's make it to a named NPC in Star Wars -- do you think Obi Wan would have any luck convincing Darth Maul or Darth Vader to give them their light saber with just a persuasion check?

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Sorry, I also reject the premise. I’m a huge proponent for player agency in games, but rolling to deceive doesn’t affect player agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?)

IMO. Game rules always take away player agency. The only rule that doesn’t is ‘player decides’, which taken to its full extent doesn’t yield much of a game at all.

The real question to ask isnt directly about agency, but rather does whatever I’m about to do conflict with what the player believes the chosen game grants him agency over. That’s the part that causes friction.

If your players are like me, then for a d&d game absent a session 0 or such stating NPCs can make social skill checks against PCs and you must go along with it then I’d feel like that being sprung on me mid session would not be meeting my expectations of what I was supposed to have agency over in that game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let’s take a step back and see what all has to go right for a PC to deceive an NPC.

It must be ruled there is a chance of failure (auto success also is possible but seems less likely). Big lies are likely more prone to auto failure.

Then there’s an opposed deception vs insight skill check.

So IMO, when a social skill is being directed at a PC, perhaps the player should be the one determining if there’s a possibility of failure. And then if he determines there is, that’s when the skill check comes in and since he’s already agreed there’s a chance of failure when he could have said no chance, then it seems he’s very likely to abide by the skill roll results. The potential downside here is that player has meta knowledge that the character does not, namely that the NPC tried to deceive them.

Alternatively deception could be used simply as a defense against insight checks. Then the player doesn’t ever know for sure, but might suspect and can act accordingly. There’s a bit of meta knowledge reveal here potentially as well, but maybe not guaranteed.

 

[aramis erak]

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?)

Playing the effects of NPC success on such rolls is part of the social contract of my tables, and doing it well is grounds for some reward in metacurrency. That usually being XP in D&D (Experience is a metacurrency...), Bennies in Savage Worlds, etc.

 

[GMMichael]

Okay, I will. Because we are talking purely the persuasion skill, not The Force. And it's to a PC, so let's make it to a named NPC in Star Wars -- do you think Obi Wan would have any luck convincing Darth Maul or Darth Vader to give them their light saber with just a persuasion check?

So you think it's fine for a vampire to persuade a PC to be friends with her, but it's a bridge too far to get a PC to hand over his favorite magic item? Because handing over his life to the vampire is less valuable? There's not much I can say to that.

So IMO, when a social skill is being directed at a PC, perhaps the player should be the one determining if there’s a possibility of failure. And then if he determines there is, that’s when the skill check comes in and since he’s already agreed there’s a chance of failure when he could have said no chance, then it seems he’s very likely to abide by the skill roll results. The potential downside here is that player has meta knowledge that the character does not, namely that the NPC tried to deceive them.

I do this somewhat frequently. "The Dornish envoy compliments your attire with a grin and a raised eyebrow . . . does it change your mind about the wine shipment at all?" But if that Dornish envoy is using his "deity skill," it would be more like, "the Dornish envoy assures you that your wine shipment will be arriving on time. You find no reason to doubt him." If the PC saw the wrecked shipment with her own eyes, but the envoy wins the deception roll, I can plant a seed of doubt. "It occurs to you that the envoy knows something you don't, like the destroyed shipment that you saw may have been an illusion."

The problem with social skill checks is simple. It's a terrible mechanic. . .
If you think about it, it's the same with action related skill checks.

So, what's not a terrible mechanism?

 

[KYRON45]

So, what's not a terrible mechanism?

skill checks tell the character what they THINK is true.

Something like combat is more concrete. If you beat this AC check…you get to cause a quantifiable outcome of X damage.

Is there a concrete outcome to a skill check?

Is that “not terrible”? I’m sure someone will tell me it is.

 

[Committed Hero]

"You think he's being sincere" has enough room for a duplicitous NPC to be lying.