NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TiQuinn]

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.

This is what I do as well. A successful insight roll will tell them if the subject is nervous, fidgeting, trying to evade questions, and so forth, but I never outright say “the NPC is lying”. I let the player make that final determination.

 

[payn]

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.

Sure, there are certainly games like that. I know folks may not like that becasue player agency is temporarily curbed to serve the ruleset and that isnt appreciated. What im discussing is more an expectation of player/NPC behavior based on the results of skill checks. Mind you, ive mentioned being deceived doesnt mean forced behavior outcome. Just that a player/character operating on knowledge or confirmation of info the player's character doesnt have, isnt something I appreciate.

For example, PCs are deceived by a conman posing as a tax collector. He convincingly presents forged papers indicating the PCs owe tax payment immediately via skill checks. Players are free to engage in any number of ways. Though, they should operate under the impression there could be some consequence if they dont pay. Further interaction is needed to disprove the ruse becasue at the moment they cant. The players can pay now and follow up, or they can refuse to pay and follow up under the threat of the fine escalating into a crime. I dont force them to act. Though, if they refuse indicating that the player knows the character will face no consequences, or decide to have the PC kill the NPC so they cant attempt this again, that seems out of character to me.

What folks might be thinking is the NPC bluffs the PCs into thinking they owe the tax, and have no other action choice but to pay it. This is often how its viewed from the other angle of a PC deceiving an NPC and forcing them to act as they indicate. My position is that the social skills do not work that way at my table for PC or NPC. That a successful ruse is usually a combination of checks, intentions, investigation, etc.. More like a scene than a single binary result. YMMV.

 

[payn]

Thinking further on the NPC that is a deception master problem. This is one of the trickiest types of characters to pull off. They dont lie like a typical person. Which is, someone on their back foot that is desparetely trying not to get found out. Or, an unconvicing compulsive liar who just cant help themselves. The NPC deciver plans out their decpetions with nuance and skill. Meaning you need a series of ruses and plausibile deniability that sow confusion and muddy the waters. The lies need to be indirect and not easily solvable that causes the target to act as the deciever chooses them to. Meanwhile, the decievers allies are operating in the background as their partner gives them cover for as long as they can.

In short, such a character needs to be woven into the adventure/campaign to the point they have as many avenues as possible to utilize. If the plan is too simple, and relies on a single bluff, its just not going to work out behind a single encoutner. YMMV.

 

[TiQuinn]

Thinking further on the NPC that is a deception master problem. This is one of the trickiest types of characters to pull off. They dont lie like a typical person. Which is, someone on their back foot that is desparetely trying not to get found out. Or, an unconvicing compulsive liar who just cant help themselves. The NPC deciver plans out their decpetions with nuance and skill. Meaning you need a series of ruses and plausibile deniability that sow confusion and muddy the waters. The lies need to be indirect and not easily solvable that causes the target to act as the deciever chooses them to. Meanwhile, the decievers allies are operating in the background as their partner gives them cover for as long as they can.

In short, such a character needs to be woven into the adventure/campaign to the point they have as many avenues as possible to utilize. If the plan is too simple, and relies on a single bluff, its just not going to work out behind a single encoutner. YMMV.

Agreed. There’s also the meta gaming aspect. Players are media savvy enough to recognize the Keyser Soze character in front of them, and immediately not trust a single word they say. Even if the are “deceived” per a deception roll, the player knows the NPC is a lying snake.

 

[billd91]

Thinking further on the NPC that is a deception master problem. This is one of the trickiest types of characters to pull off. They dont lie like a typical person. Which is, someone on their back foot that is desparetely trying not to get found out. Or, an unconvicing compulsive liar who just cant help themselves. The NPC deciver plans out their decpetions with nuance and skill. Meaning you need a series of ruses and plausibile deniability that sow confusion and muddy the waters. The lies need to be indirect and not easily solvable that causes the target to act as the deciever chooses them to. Meanwhile, the decievers allies are operating in the background as their partner gives them cover for as long as they can.

In short, such a character needs to be woven into the adventure/campaign to the point they have as many avenues as possible to utilize. If the plan is too simple, and relies on a single bluff, its just not going to work out behind a single encoutner. YMMV.

The issue is complicated by the fact that the difference between a deception master NPC who has elaborate schemes and a quest giver NPC dangling with adventure hooks is… what, exactly? Both situations involve the DM being the source of truth for for the players. Presumably, for the deception master, there are other forms of evidence the PCs might encounter that might undermine his schemes. But they all come from the DM too. And even a sincere NPC might be contradicted, or the players interpret a contradiction, from time to time.

As a DM, you want the trust of the players. Using a deception master NPC can, therefore, be perilous for your own credibility as DM. No matter how many sincere NPCs you use, you KNOW they’ll always fixate on the one who screwed they over or wrong footed them.

 

[payn]

Agreed. There’s also the meta gaming aspect. Players are media savvy enough to recognize the Keyser Soze character in front of them, and immediately not trust a single word they say. Even if the are “deceived” per a deception roll, the player knows the NPC is a lying snake.

Yeap. I was just thinking about one of the best deceptive characters ive run across in media. Elam Garrack from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Warning, spoilers incoming. For background, Elam was an officer of his nation's clandestine spy network. For reasons, he was banished from his homeland and now resides amongst foreigners in lands not exactly friendly to his people. He, of course, indicates that he served in the basic military, like every member of his people, but that was decades ago. Now, he is a simple shop keep earning a living.

Well, one day a bomb explodes in Elam's shop, nearly killing him. This forces action from the constable to investigate. The constable has suspicions that Elam was directly involved with the bomb, but cant confirm that. Why would somebody try to blow themselves up? Also, its not like Elam doesnt have a lot of dangerous enemies. The types that might assassinate a person. Despite the constables suspicions, he investigates the crime and suspects.

So, a few things here. If Elam was an NPC, and the constable a PC, how would you play this out? The goal for Elam was to throw off suspicions and get the authorities to protect him from his enemies. He couldnt simply tell them he had suspicions that an assassin was there to kill him. Also, he'd have to give up on his "just a shop keep" ruse and/or reveal info he didnt want to provide. So, he concocted an event that forced his unwitting allies to act on instead of convincing them with a simple lie. Now if the constable was a PC, they could just say "nope, this guy is lying not gonna do this at all" despite the facts before the character. What is the justification for that other than meta gaming though?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't really believe in using social skills on PCs. It is up to the players to decide how their characters feel and what they believe.

Now NPC deception vs PC insight still works, as how I interpret is that if the NPC wins, it means the PC will not detect signs of lying. But it will not force the PC to believe the NPC, they're perfectly free to not believe and just assume that the NPC has a good poker face.

As for NPCs being convincing and persuasive, scary etc, I just portray them as such, no rolls. And to me at least, it is not that difficult to do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

100%. That's why my first words were "My stance..."

I have found @pemerton's thread on Torchbearer really interesting, for example, but I don't feel much compulsion to play the game. I even bought Mouse Guard, which as I understand it is a lightweight version of Torchbearer (which in turn is a lightweight version of Burning Wheel?) and greatly enjoyed reading through it, but again don't have a lot of desire to play it.[/b][/b]

 

[payn]

The issue is complicated by the fact that the difference between a deception master NPC who has elaborate schemes and a quest giver NPC dangling with adventure hooks is… what, exactly? Both situations involve the DM being the source of truth for for the players. Presumably, for the deception master, there are other forms of evidence the PCs might encounter that might undermine his schemes. But they all come from the DM too. And even a sincere NPC might be contradicted, or the players interpret a contradiction, from time to time.

As a DM, you want the trust of the players. Using a deception master NPC can, therefore, be perilous for your own credibility as DM. No matter how many sincere NPCs you use, you KNOW they’ll always fixate on the one who screwed they over or wrong footed them.

I do this all time actually. I think the key is being fair as the GM. If the PCs take actions that can entrap the NPC deciver, the GM cant/shouldnt act on knwoledge the deciver doesnt have. If the tables are turned, thats just good fair play. Its in fact, how these scenarioes usually play out. This is emergent style play that doesnt rely on sequential events happening in order or at all. I think its a blend of both playing characters fairly, and having a well thought out adventure that can adapt to the evolving situation.

Another aspect of the NPC deciever isnt of direct antagonization. An NPC deciver might suspsect a conspiracy afoot. It might be very dangerous to investigate it for them. So, they unwittingly employ somebody else to do it. The PCs of course now know better or at least they should. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me as the saying goes. This is all political intrigue stuff I often write into my games. Its not for everybody.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't really believe in using social skills on PCs. It is up to the players to decide how their characters feel and what they believe.

Yup.

Now NPC deception vs PC insight still works, as how I interpret is that if the NPC wins, it means the PC will not detect signs of lying. But it will not force the PC to believe the NPC, they're perfectly free to not believe and just assume that the NPC has a good poker face.

The part I struggle with is that I do really believe in both "action declarations" and "no roll unless there's a cost of failure" and so if the player says, "Can I tell if he's lying?" or even "Do I notice anything funny about his behavior?" I want to know what the character is doing and what the cost is of failing. (It's the same problem with knowledge skills, really.)

An example of the kind of risky action declaration I really like is, "I'm going to say something disparaging about Kelson Andor, to see what his reaction is." I might say, "Ok, that's going to take an (Insight/Wisdom/Perception/Something) check, because you're trying to trick him, and if you fail he'll be able to figure out what game you're up to."

As for NPCs being convincing and persuasive, scary etc, I just portray them as such, no rolls. And to me at least, it is not that difficult to do.

Yeah, I definitely lean toward sharing information of all sorts, rather than making players roll for it. If a character has strong Insight (or similar skill, game dependent) I'll share additional hints, no rolls required.