NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[kenada]

It seems to me that if an NPC succeeds at check to deceive a PC, then the player of that PC should roleplay as if they believe the lie until circumstances change to expose it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Always seemed to me that “agency” was just a nonsense buzz word.
Tell the DM what you want to do….thats the agency that players have. If you want more of this mythical agency…you DM.

And now i have to go chase some kids off my lawn.

Agency is a very useful word to examine issues of expectations, system design, and fortune mechanics. It's not a word that can be invoked whenever someone doesn't like how someone works. DIfferent games do certainly slice up agency over the setting/gamestate differently though, although most of them fall within a pretty narrow (IMO) range centered around something like OD&D, or perhaps inhabit a range between OD&D and PBTA I suppose.

 

[KYRON45]

Agency is a very useful word to examine issues of expectations, system design, and fortune mechanics. It's not a word that can be invoked whenever someone doesn't like how someone works. DIfferent games do certainly slice up agency over the setting/gamestate differently though, although most of them fall within a pretty narrow (IMO) range centered around something like OD&D, or perhaps inhabit a range between OD&D and PBTA I suppose.

There was a time when you simply could or could not do things. I don't think there was much of a philosophy behind it all back in the before times. If you didn't like something (system/setting), you found something you liked.
Now that there are more people than ever playing there are more analysts and philosophers interpreting things.
The only constant is change i guess.
Enjoy your games my friends.

 

[Fenris-77]

It seems to me that if an NPC succeeds at check to deceive a PC, then the player of that PC should roleplay as if they believe the lie until circumstances change to expose it.

I think that cases where the character knows that what the NPC is saying is false is actually pretty narrow. I also don't think it's an issue of agency at all. All that a decieve roll does is relate information without any mechanical proof that the NPC is lying. Players might still suspect a lie, and are still free to act on that information or not. Conversatiuons about agency only make sense if that player is being compelled to play their character in a specific way. The D&D skill system doesn't compell player characters to act in any particular way, so it doesn't make sense to talk about agency.

 

[KYRON45]

"I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or about to lie or just finished lying. BUT NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!".....Homer J. Simpson.​

 

[Fenris-77]

There was a time when you simply could or could not do things.

I don't see how this is true of older games versus newer games. I don't disagree that there are more people talking about rules and digging into what they mean now (like, internet now), but that's all armchair philosophy. It doesn't change rules nor does it force anyone to change how they play rule set X. All it does is perhaps produce more annoying moments when playing with strangers where player X gets a dopamine rush from deploying a rules argument they read somewhere to try and force an issue. That doesn't change the rules either, and I don't think it's really any different from the old school rules lawyer.

 

[cranberry]

Again thanks everyone for all of the insight and perspective. However, from the reaction of a few folks, it seems that I've accidentally stepped on a sore spot, which wasn't my intention.

 

[Fenris-77]

Again thanks everyone for all of the insight and perspective. However, from the reaction of a few folks, it seems that I've accidentally stepped on a sore spot, which wasn't my intention.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. All us armchair generals have our hot topic items.

 

[kenada]

I think that cases where the character knows that what the NPC is saying is false is actually pretty narrow. I also don't think it's an issue of agency at all. All that a decieve roll does is relate information without any mechanical proof that the NPC is lying. Players might still suspect a lie, and are still free to act on that information or not. Conversatiuons about agency only make sense if that player is being compelled to play their character in a specific way. The D&D skill system doesn't compell player characters to act in any particular way, so it doesn't make sense to talk about agency.

What I’m suggesting is that roleplaying may involve not acting on the player’s suspicions if the character would believe what they were just told (as determined by the check). I don’t see that as being compelled so much as just doing what the character would do.

Otherwise, I don’t like talking about “player agency” because it’s a pernicious bit of RPG jargon. If never seems to mean exactly the same thing from person to person, and it often comes with an implication that maximal agency is best. I don’t think the latter is necessarily true. What I care about is whether the decisions I can make are interesting and that their effects will be respected.

 

[Fenris-77]

What I’m suggesting is that roleplaying may involve not acting on the player’s suspicions if the character would believe what they were just told (as determined by the check). I don’t see that as being compelled so much as just doing what the character would do.

I think you're misinterpreting what a successful decieve roll actually means as it applies to a player. All it means is that the player, and thus the character, thinks the NPC is telling the truth. There's absolutely nothing that compels the player to believe that the statement is true or especially to act on it. The roll doesn't determine what the player or PC believes though. The player can decide to act on that information however they like. Roleplaying doesn't compel the player to act either, althought they could. I know this is similar to what you're saying, but I don't think that the phrase "do what the character would do" is especially useful here except as a very loose rubric.

Personally, just because an NPC makes a skill check I'm not likely to do somethign with my character that I think is stupid, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to. As a GM I never roll skills like this against PCs for this reason - I leave the reasoning bit to the player. I'll give them the info and they can roll to see if they detect falsehood if the system has such a mechanic. That's more than enough IMO. I think it's illustrative that many RPGs don't have anything like that mechanic and still manage to social interaction just fine.