NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

Right I don’t get what you are saying either. NPCs not like PC was an unchaining of the rules so NPCs could have things the PCs don’t. Like legendary defense abilities etc.. The intention isn’t to give PCs immunity from NPC effect. If anything, some NPC social skills ought to have greater effect under this design choice.

Though let’s examine PC immunity to NPC influence. Is it just social skills the PCs are immune to? Why not other skills? Why not enchantment magic as well? Where is it outlined how the PCs are greater than and that NPC are less than.

Oh, I see. You started with my assertion that a deception mechanic is not symmetric between PCs and NPCs, and played a "what if" game to see where it would lead if that were true across all the other mechanics, and that's how you ended up with "fantasy super friends".

By the way, the asymmetry also gives NPCs an advantage over players: I might have NPCs roll Insight to determine if they see through PC lies, but I don't let players use Insight as some kind of magical lie detector.

 

[payn]

Oh, I see. You started with my assertion that a deception mechanic is not symmetric between PCs and NPCs, and played a "what if" game to see where it would lead if that were true across all the other mechanics, and that's how you ended up with "fantasy super friends".

By the way, the asymmetry also gives NPCs an advantage over players: I might have NPCs roll Insight to determine if they see through PC lies, but I don't let players use Insight as some kind of magical lie detector.

Out of curiosity, how do PCs detect lies then?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also, this was a general discussion on how RPGs ought to work and not sure if the OP intended a 5E discussion but it’s a interesting topic.

Good point. My stance on how RPGs "ought to work" in this regard is that players have exclusive control over what their characters think, and therefore what actions they attempt, and referees (DMs, GMs, etc.) rule on the impact those player actions have on the world. The exceptions being explicitly defined abilities, spells, etc. The worst thing a DM can say is, 'Your character wouldn't do that.'

If people have preferences for how other people choose to roleplay, the way to express that is through choosing to play with like-minded people, not enforce it through rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Out of curiosity, how do PCs detect lies then?

2nd level paladin spell?

Or the way humans do: look for clues and make your best guess. You might misinterpret the clues and guess wrong.

 

[payn]

Good point. My stance on how RPGs "ought to work" in this regard is that players have exclusive control over what their characters think, and therefore what actions they attempt, and referees (DMs, GMs, etc.) rule on the impact those player actions have on the world. The exceptions being explicitly defined abilities, spells, etc. The worst thing a DM can say is, 'Your character wouldn't do that.'

If people have preferences for how other people choose to roleplay, the way to express that is through choosing to play with like-minded people, not enforce it through rules.

Good thing ive never done any rule enforcement then.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Actually, I want to expand on that "Players are not NPCs” thing.

According to 5e rules, we are supposed to use dice when the outcome is uncertain, and the outcome matters. Let's assume that the outcome does matter.

In the case of a PC lying, the reason the outcome...whether or not the NPC believes the PC...is uncertain is a) the DM decides it is so, and b) the DM has full knowledge of the setting, and whether or not the player is lying, so can't possibly put him/herself into the head of that particular NPC.

But in the reverse case, the player does not have all that setting knowledge, and only has one character...their own...to worry about. So there's no uncertainty: if the player believe the NPC, they believe them. If they don't believe them, they don't believe them.

And, again, if the DM designs an adventure such that successfully deceiving the players is key to the story, that's the DM's fault.

There's a lot of nuance between "the plot only works if the players are deceived" and "the way the plot plays out is different if the players are deceived".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Good point. My stance on how RPGs "ought to work" in this regard is that players have exclusive control over what their characters think, and therefore what actions they attempt, and referees (DMs, GMs, etc.) rule on the impact those player actions have on the world. The exceptions being explicitly defined abilities, spells, etc. The worst thing a DM can say is, 'Your character wouldn't do that.'

If people have preferences for how other people choose to roleplay, the way to express that is through choosing to play with like-minded people, not enforce it through rules.

That's your choice but there are any number of games that have explicit mechanics around character personalities and behavior. Many of them are at the choice of players (as in they have buy-in) but not all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Good thing ive never done any rule enforcement then.

I have. Usually I haven't needed to, but there are games where its expected that things the players have chosen in terms of behavioral options will be enforced, either by them or the GM.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not sure how to reconcile a successful roll means that the player thinks the NPC is telling the truth with the roll doesn't determine what the player believes. Aren't "think s" and "believes" synonyms in this context?

I tell you what, I don't want to argue at cross purposes so perhaps you could provide an example of a game where something like a decieve roll in any way forces responses on a player, as per the examples we've been noodling about above. This isn't a passive agresssive thing, I'm just not sure what you actually mean and it would be helpful to have an example.

Given that you're familiar with a wide variety of games, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.

But some RPGs I know, in which the outcome of a NPC's action directed at a PC can require the player to make certain choices for their PC even though the player would prefer otherwise, are Marvel Heroic RP and Torchbearer 2e.

From the MHRP rules (pp OM56, OM59):

Non-physical conflict actions use many of the same rules as combat or physical actions, so everything we’ve introduced so far is fair game. Actions, reactions, effects, extraordinary successes, and dividing your attention are all just as valid in tense Scenes between Spider-Man and Mary Jane or Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. And any emotionally charged Scene can escalate to a knockdown drag-out fight, depending on who’s involved. So keep this in mind as you read on - an Action Scene can be physical, mental, emotional, or any combination of the three. . . .

It’s easier to understand being knocked out in a pitched battle with the forces of Hydra than it is to wrap your head around losing control of your character’s emotions or mental state. Roleplaying games are about getting into character and making decisions for a heroic persona, right? When the rules tell you that you have to make decisions you didn’t want to make, or when the rules make those decisions for you, it can seem worse than having your hero get clobbered.

In this game, the big decisions are yours to make. There are two ways to handle it when your hero is stressed out mentally, emotionally, or both. The first is that you can just let the Watcher describe what happens, and trust that the situation’s going to change again soon. Since a stressed out character can’t actually do anything like rolling dice or taking action, your character might temporarily take a bit of a back seat to the story. Alternately, the Watcher might skip to a new Scene, where you’ve recovered your stress and now you’re back in control but dealing with trauma.

The other option is to play it up! If you know what your opponent wanted you to do, you can take direction from that and make decisions for your hero that have that in mind. You can even do this when you haven’t been stressed out yet, but you’re wrestling with high levels of mental or emotional stress. Describe how your hero paces back and forth, angry and frustrated. Or have your hero lost in despair, opening up his heart to the manipulative villain. It’s still an interesting story, and this way you’re still in charge. And if you do choose to play it out, the Watcher might reward an exceptional
performance with a Plot Point, especially if it lines up with one of your Distinctions or Milestones.

If you’re being mind controlled or possessed, the same applies. Mind control starts out as influence (a complication) that can lead to full-on domination (“stressed out” by complication). Villains with mind control powers, like the Purple Man, usually try to have heroes do things that they otherwise wouldn’t do, or keep them from doing things they want or need to do. Fighting this kind of influence is equivalent to making a recovery action, but you’re not rolling against the doom pool. Instead, the character with mind control powers opposes, keeping you from stepping back or eliminating that mental stress.​

And here's an example from some of my own recent Torchbearer play:

The second Pathfinder test failed too; here I opted for a twist, and called on Telemere, as the Lookout, to make a Scout test. He failed, and so the PCs stumbled upon a group of 3 pirates (on the shore, away from the rest of their crewmates), who initiated a Capture conflict.

I rolled fairly well in this conflict, and so the PCs were captured, but with a half-compromise owed. I can't remember now exactly how we resolved this (EDIT: I think it was here that we established that the rescued prisoners escaped, so that only the PCs were caught), but the action rolled into a Convince Crowd conflict, as the PCs - led by Golin, the only Orator - tried to persuade the pirates that they were friends of Tolub and so should be taken to him free rather than as captives. The pirates had only 2 hp for this conflict, while the PCs had 3, and the PCs won with only 1 hp lost. What the pirates really wanted was Fea-bella's silver bucket, but the compromise was that instead they were given some draughts of magic water from that "sacred bucket".

The PCs were therefore taken back to the pirates' vessel, which duly sailed them back to Nulb. They paid of some of their tool by spending the ruby to procure victuals from the pirates. Golin's galoshes helped him, given that some of their journeying had been on the river bank; and they took four conditions between them, leaving Golin Exhausted.

Which produced groans, given this was where the PCs had been trying to get away from at the start of the session. But the town event roll was a 6:

Bandits. The village is beset with bandits (3d6 in number). Remain in the adventure phase until the bandits are driven off or until you arrive at a different settlement.​

In this case, of course it was pirates - 11 of them - who were not just occupying the accommodation, but had literally taken over the township. The PCs didn't want to fight pirates. They tried to persuade the pirates to let them sail back south, with the Jolly Roger lowered and the pirates themselves hiding below deck so as to avoid notice and capture by Wintershiven authorities; but this attempt - resolved as a simple Orator vs the pirate captain Orgoth Bloodeye's Orator 3 - failed, and so Orgoth shifted to negotiation instead: he would do what the PCs asked in exchange for the silver bucket, in advance. This was resolved as a full Negotiation conflict, and Orgoth (aided by his second-in-command) succeeded with no compromise owed. This was my best rolling of the session - with 9 successes out of 9 dice on Orgoth's two rolls - and caused much gnashing of teeth and wails of lamentation from the players, who had to hand over their remaining loot.

As a result of social interaction resolution, the PCs first had to give up some of their magic water, and then had to hand over their "sacred" silver bucket to pay for passage.

Here's another example which involved a single check - Manipulator vs Manipulator - rather than extended conflict resolution:

Lareth then turned his attention to Fea-bella. The conversation established that Lareth's father was the wizard Pallando, and his mother (Fella) was an exile from Elfhome. She was exiled because of her role in the theft of the Dreamhouse post by Celedhring, the evil Elf who is now a barrow-wight beneath what was Megloss's house. Lareth explained that Celedhring was Fella's brother (and hence his and Fea-bella's uncle), and that Fella was exiled with him much as, in the ancient times, Galadriel was exiled with her cousin Feanor. "And who is your father?" asked Lareth of Fea-bella.

This caused much discussion among the players - was Lareth implying that Fea-bella was the child of an incestuous relationship between Fella and Celedhring? There was also discussion about where Fea-bella did her dreaming, before she woke, Dream-haunted, and ran off bearing a half-moon glaive. Was this not in the Elf-home Dreamhouse, but rather in Pallando's house?

I suggested that Fea-bella might try a Nature (Remembering ) test, but her player didn't want to - too much grind, and little chance of success. So I resorted to my NPC, and called for another Manipulator vs Manipulator due to Lareth's goading. This time Golin helped Lareth! The test was failed, and so (as a twist) Fea-bella could not help but cast her mind back . . . As her player put it, Fea-bella wanted to remember only happy times of her childhood, with the Elven forest and rainbows and unicorns, and I set this at (I think, from memory) Ob 2. Telemere helped with his own Remembering Nature, and Korvin used Oratory to remind Fea-bella of tales of her childhood she had told her companions. Golin also aided Fea-bella this time, with Dreams-wise.

This test was a success, and so Fea-bella was spared any horrible memories (and the truth about her father remains unknown at this point).

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not sure how to reconcile a successful roll means that the player thinks the NPC is telling the truth with the roll doesn't determine what the player believes. Aren't "think s" and "believes" synonyms in this context?

Given that you're familiar with a wide variety of games, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.

Spoiler: Shortening the quote

But some RPGs I know, in which the outcome of a NPC's action directed at a PC can require the player to make certain choices for their PC even though the player would prefer otherwise, are Marvel Heroic RP and Torchbearer 2e.

From the MHRP rules (pp OM56, OM59):

Non-physical conflict actions use many of the same rules as combat or physical actions, so everything we’ve introduced so far is fair game. Actions, reactions, effects, extraordinary successes, and dividing your attention are all just as valid in tense Scenes between Spider-Man and Mary Jane or Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. And any emotionally charged Scene can escalate to a knockdown drag-out fight, depending on who’s involved. So keep this in mind as you read on - an Action Scene can be physical, mental, emotional, or any combination of the three. . . .​

​

It’s easier to understand being knocked out in a pitched battle with the forces of Hydra than it is to wrap your head around losing control of your character’s emotions or mental state. Roleplaying games are about getting into character and making decisions for a heroic persona, right? When the rules tell you that you have to make decisions you didn’t want to make, or when the rules make those decisions for you, it can seem worse than having your hero get clobbered.​

being​

In this game, the big decisions are yours to make. There are two ways to handle it when your hero is stressed out mentally, emotionally, or both. The first is that you can just let the Watcher describe what happens, and trust that the situation’s going to change again soon. Since a stressed out character can’t actually do anything like rolling dice or taking action, your character might temporarily take a bit of a back seat to the story. Alternately, the Watcher might skip to a new Scene, where you’ve recovered your stress and now you’re back in control but dealing with trauma.​

​

The other option is to play it up! If you know what your opponent wanted you to do, you can take direction from that and make decisions for your hero that have that in mind. You can even do this when you haven’t been stressed out yet, but you’re wrestling with high levels of mental or emotional stress. Describe how your hero paces back and forth, angry and frustrated. Or have your hero lost in despair, opening up his heart to the manipulative villain. It’s still an interesting story, and this way you’re still in charge. And if you do choose to play it out, the Watcher might reward an exceptional​

performance with a Plot Point, especially if it lines up with one of your Distinctions or Milestones.​

​

If you’re being mind controlled or possessed, the same applies. Mind control starts out as influence (a complication) that can lead to full-on domination (“stressed out” by complication). Villains with mind control powers, like the Purple Man, usually try to have heroes do things that they otherwise wouldn’t do, or keep them from doing things they want or need to do. Fighting this kind of influence is equivalent to making a recovery action, but you’re not rolling against the doom pool. Instead, the character with mind control powers opposes, keeping you from stepping back or eliminating that mental stress.​

And here's an example from some of my own recent Torchbearer play:

As a result of social interaction resolution, the PCs first had to give up some of their magic water, and then had to hand over their "sacred" silver bucket to pay for passage.

Here's another example which involved a single check - Manipulator vs Manipulator - rather than extended conflict resolution:

Believing that the NPC is saying something they belive to be true isn't the same as the PC being required to also belive that same thing. Those are good examples though. I've not played Marvel heroic, but I should have remembered that Luke Crane would be that guy. It's still not the case that in most games a social skill check by an NPC forces particular courses of action on a player though. D&D, CoC, BRP generally, OSR, etc etc - the list of games where that's not the case is extensive.

I'm not suggesting that via roleplaying that a player might not choose to believe those things, or act as if they are true, only that (unlike NPCs going the other way) many games, perhaps even most games, don't decide that issue for the player. Some do (and thanks again for the examples), but many do not. The force issue becomes even clearer when you look at player action declarations of the same type. Things like I'm going to fast talk my way past the secretary. A successful roll there not only means the secretary believes you gabble, but also that she will let you into the building. That's simply not a common outcome for NPC rolls of the same type vs PCs. I don't GMs to make a roll in that same flipped script moment. I would think it more usual that they would just RP the NPC and then perhaps make a roll if one was needed to counter or act as a target for a PC roll for something like sense motive, or psychology, or whatever.

It's possible that I have a blind spot on this issues due to the games I play and my own personal experience, but I don't think so. I'm always open to being convinced though.