NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Fenris-77]

To me, this links back to @kenada's post(s) upthread.

For many years (1990-2008 inclusive) my main RPG was Rolemaster, RM has an extensive list of social/influence skills, and (of course) has a resolution chart for when players declare actions involving those skills. But the assumption, as for the various games that you list, is that these skills are figuring primarily in players' rolls to have their PCs influence NPCs.

But when we played, there was a type of "honour code", which back then we would have labelled "good roleplaying", that if the GM told you that a NPC said such-and-such to you, and had a result of (say) 150 on their Duping roll, then you would roleplay your PC being duped even though you, the player, knew that it was a lie.

I think this is what @kenada was getting at, in referring to RPGs that are less "toothy" in their social conflict resolution than systems like the ones I mentioned in my post (MHRP, Torchbearer, etc).

EDIT: I think @payn is getting at a similar point in post 112 upthread.

That's so interesting. I'be been playing RPGs for a long time and i've played a lot of different games and this has never even come up as an idea. Great evidence that people in different places and groups do things very differently.

 

[pemerton]

I have found @pemerton's thread on Torchbearer really interesting, for example, but I don't feel much compulsion to play the game.

I can only say that you're missing out on an awesome system!

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, I'll be pretty blunt; there are all parts of RPGs that I don't find a virtue in a player being able to end run because he has good real world skills in an area, any more than a different player should not be able to compete in the area because he has bad ones. There are some practical limits to this (as I reference in my prior post) but I think the rules should both function as a support for the latter and a limiter to the former.

Its just that in the case of the player facing end of it (such as this topic), there's some practical limits that are dependent on the players ability to play along, where as at the other end the GM can force the issue to some degree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What game has a joke roll mechanic?

Any with a Performance skill. There might not be much to it, but its there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right! And the correct solution to a conflict of styles…if one is unable to just roll with it (no play on words intended)…is to find like-minded people, rather than force compliance.

While I don't disagree in principal, I'll just note that for many people its not always that simple.

 

[pemerton]

I can't keep track of what everybody says in every thread, but some people (apparently not you) have expressed opinions that players should have to abide by the results of these sorts of rolls. To me that's "rule enforcement".

Well, as I posted not far upthread, for me and my group it wasn't about rules enforcement but rather about good roleplaying (as we thought of it back then).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Roger that. I noted as much in my post about Torchbearer. Super interesting to read about; not my cup of tea.

Its just that its not an uncommon case; to give a set of common examples, Hero, GURPS and Savage Worlds all have character disadvantage options that mandate, to one degree or another, the character behaving in certain ways. Once a player chooses one of those (and in some cases they'll probably choose some at least) there's an obligation on their part to follow them, and to some degree for the GM to enforce them. Ideally the player and the GM are at least somewhat on the same page what that means in practice (and what circumstances the character can try, but possibly fail to work against them) but that can't be assured.

In a more extreme (and not non-controversial) case, you have Pendragon, which has Virtue and Vice ratings of various sorts that you're required to establish when creating a character, and need to roll against if you want to act against them; these serve some real functions in the game. Its the view of some people that these rolls place the character on autopilot, which I think overstates the case but I can understand how they've gotten there.

 

[MGibster]

But when we played, there was a type of "honour code", which back then we would have labelled "good roleplaying", that if the GM told you that a NPC said such-and-such to you, and had a result of (say) 150 on their Duping roll, then you would roleplay your PC being duped even though you, the player, knew that it was a lie.

I've got a few people in the group I run who play their characters like this. The player might thing something is suspicious, but if the character doesn't have a clue they'll just head right into the situation without a second thought. I like this kind of player, they make things more fun.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Its just that its not an uncommon case; to give a set of common examples, Hero, GURPS and Savage Worlds all have character disadvantage options that mandate, to one degree or another, the character behaving in certain ways. Once a player chooses one of those (and in some cases they'll probably choose some at least) there's an obligation on their part to follow them, and to some degree for the GM to enforce them. Ideally the player and the GM are at least somewhat on the same page what that means in practice (and what circumstances the character can try, but possibly fail to work against them) but that can't be assured.

In a more extreme (and not non-controversial) case, you have Pendragon, which has Virtue and Vice ratings of various sorts that you're required to establish when creating a character, and need to roll against if you want to act against them; these serve some real functions in the game. Its the view of some people that these rolls place the character on autopilot, which I think overstates the case but I can understand how they've gotten there.

I am MUCH more ok with rules that apply penalties if you behave in certain ways. (TOR is another example of this.). Just as long as it's the player's choice what to do, I'm ok with it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are times I can pull it off but the thing that helps is actively working to make sure there are also genuinely helpful NPCs who do not harbor ulterior motives. If every helpful NPC betrays the characters or is set up to die horribly or be an obstacle, players get conditioned to treat NPCs accordingly.

The problem is that often there's an issue of why the NPC is there at all, and people's sense of what purpose they're probably serving. Just like TV shows or movies (and to far less a degree in books) you only have a limited amount of time to do what you need to do in an adventure, and while you may toss out some NPCs just for color, most are going to serve a purpose, and it can be hard for people with the right mindset not to spot the purpose. You see this in well crafted TV shows when the writers throw out a red herring or two (but often they aren't subtle enough to make it actually work reliably).