NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

Personally I don't think you should have to have those skills to be a good GM (although GMing is an excellent way to learn those skills). That's literally what the mechanics are for.

If so, that raises a difficult question (at least for me): are social mechanics there as scaffolding for DMs who can't amuse/deceive/persuade, or are they meant to replace those skills for all DMs?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Agree 100%, but reading your post made me realize that perhaps some people who disagree are coming from the position of believing that you shouldn't have to have these skills in order to DM. And that's actually a really interesting question. Should you have to be a good actor in order to be a good DM? Or is it fine that some DMs can pull off humor and deception, and other DMs have to rely on other tools?

Well, I'm not sure that it is essential, but being a passable actor absolutely does make one a better GM. (And a better player as well.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

If so, that raises a difficult question (at least for me): are social mechanics there as scaffolding for DMs who can't amuse/deceive/persuade, or are they meant to replace those skills for all DMs?

Either or both. The rules are there to support play. If you don't want to use social skills rules and prefer free roleplay, then just do that. For those who want them (either to compensate for a lack of skill or as a tool to facilitate roleplaying in the setting and the circumstances in a verisimilitudinous manner), they are there.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, I'm not sure that it is essential, but being a passable actor absolutely does make one a better GM. (And a better player as well.)

Yeah, I agree. But this discussion is making me realize (which I think I previously understood only subconsciously) that the fact some people disagree is a fundamental difference that leads to all sorts of disagreements. I.e., the old, "You don't ask players to demonstrate their sword skill before they roll an attack, why should they have to make a persuasive argument to convince an NPC?"

In my opinion that is a slippery slope (in the dangerous sense, not the inevitable/rhetorical sense) leading to the removal of all player engagement. Why be aware for clues about secret doors when you can just roll? Why think of a clever way to disarm a trap when you can just roll? Why try to think of anything when you can just roll?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I'm not sure that it is essential, but being a passable actor absolutely does make one a better GM. (And a better player as well.)

And one can act like their PC is deceived even if they the player are not, if that is what the rules you're using indicate.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Either or both. The rules are there to support play. If you don't want to use social skills rules and prefer free roleplay, then just do that. For those who want them (either to compensate for a lack of skill or as a tool to facilitate roleplaying in the setting and the circumstances in a verisimilitudinous manner), they are there.

I can agree with that.

The impression I get from some posts is that the rules take precedence over the roleplaying. Or even that rolling the dice and then abiding by the results is true roleplaying.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And one can act like their PC is deceived even if they the player are not, if that is what the rules you're using indicate.

My caveat here is "...only if the player wants to play that way." They should not be forced to do that.

To again summon the troll/fire example (because I think the same principle is at play): I don't enjoy pretending to not know about trolls and fire for my own sake, but I will do so if there is a new player at the table who really doesn't know. So that they can have the full experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I agree. But this discussion is making me realize (which I think I previously understood only subconsciously) that the fact some people disagree is a fundamental difference that leads to all sorts of disagreements. I.e., the old, "You don't ask players to demonstrate their sword skill before they roll an attack, why should they have to make a persuasive argument to convince an NPC?"

In my opinion that is a slippery slope (in the dangerous sense, not the inevitable/rhetorical sense) leading to the removal of all player engagement. Why be aware for clues about secret doors when you can just roll? Why think of a clever way to disarm a trap when you can just roll? Why try to think of anything when you can just roll?

In my view the player makes choices in general for the PC, but the results of those choices are filtered through the PCs ability to get it done, which is determined by things like stats, skills, abilities, and in-setting circumstances. So the player can lay out a detailed plan for searching a room for clues, but if the PC is mechanically bad at that, it's really going to matter. And that IMO should apply to any task a player undertakes in the game through their PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can agree with that.

The impression I get from some posts is that the rules take precedence over the roleplaying. Or even that rolling the dice and then abiding by the results is true roleplaying.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. See my post above for an expanded explanation of my stance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My caveat here is "...only if the player wants to play that way." They should not be forced to do that.

To again summon the troll/fire example (because I think the same principle is at play): I don't enjoy pretending to not know about trolls and fire for my own sake, but I will do so if there is a new player at the table who really doesn't know. So that they can have the full experience.

Different play for different folks.