NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Thomas Shey]

In the case of 5E, id argue thats a ruling, and not a rule, which is the intended use of the system. I dont see anything indicating it provides a direct value the target must accept, so another ruling. I wouldnt agree any of it is technically correct tho.

Any successful entertainment skill has to assume its producing some useful (in the sense of evoking the desired result) effect on the audience or, well, what's the roll mean?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Interesting that you mentioned stakes as a factor concerning whether or not social mechanics should be abided by by PCs. Why should stakes matter? Are the rules different if the player thinks it's more important?

I just meant there is little reason for the players to not go along with it, as there is really not an actual conflict. But the rules are not different, it is up to the players how their characters feel regardless.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but then maybe one should also be willing to make some playstyle compromises?

The key word here is "some". Some hills are worth dying on for some people.

(To make it clear, I've played under a lot of people who did hidden rolls. I don't consider it a deal breaker. I do, however, consider the opposite mostly best-practice, and what I plan to do from this point on, made all the easier because I'm using a digital dice roller on a VTT).

 

[aramis erak]

I don't think you can apply the same rules to NPC and PCs in any kind of useful way for social interaction. An interesting difference of opion! Free roleplay does work, and my favorite systems treat social interaction with a light touch. I dislike crunchy SI mechanics.

Free roleplay only works when the players are comparable in competence to the character as rolled/written.

Whether that's by sandbagging or natural is still a case where free roleplay prevents certain subsets of players from the ability to play a number of common archetypes.

I always let good RP drop a decent modifier on... and really bad puts its obverse on... but if it's going to limit player agency (or GM agency), it's going to be a roll. One time too many of a group dump-statting Charisma and then trying to weasel word their way past situations where their Cha 3 to 5 character should be standing there looking stunned, and stammering.

 

[aramis erak]

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]

LIghtweight version? Luke gets real angry at that. As in clear rage posting in 2009-'10 when the comparison was made. Luke's not entirely wrong.

Burning Wheel Revised (BWR) begat Mouse Guard, Mouse Guard begat Torchbearer. So, no, technically, Mouse Guard isn't Torchbearer light. Nor is TB Burning Wheel Light. It's Mouse Guard's skeleton with more detailed character gen, encumbrance and supplies rules... and a magic system.

BWR and Burning Empires are mostly the same system; BWR is a classic playloop, but BE uses a scene budget instead. Knowing BWR/BWG duel of Wits will make the use of BE Duel of Wits dead simple to learn - they're the same. But BE's combat rules for physical are not a match to either of BWR/BWG's detailed combat systems (Fight!, Range & Cover). Plus, BE revises the metaplot mechanic from a BWR supplement (Jihad)...
MG instead uses a single conflict mechanic, simplified from (essentially) Duel of Wits, but applies it to all extended actions. TB uses that same conflict mechanic. Where they differ is in character generation, special abilities, and the play loop access when spending checks.

The play loops for all 4 core games differ... a lot. The underpinning philosophy does not. Nor does the rating of skills (tho' BWR/BWG shade tweaks the values when you shade shift them).

 

[Celebrim]

Free roleplay only works when the players are comparable in competence to the character as rolled/written.

Whether that's by sandbagging or natural is still a case where free roleplay prevents certain subsets of players from the ability to play a number of common archetypes.

It doesn't matter whether you use free roleplay or any other methodology, you can't keep an RPG a game without also having the problem that certain subsets of players aren't able to play certain characters who are heavily defined by their mental or social attributes.

Let's imagine the easy case of wanting to play a Sherlock Holmes type character. You can give that player character any amount of investigation, spot hidden, and knowledge skills to gather all the clues you want, but if the player lacks the intelligence to put the clues together then they still won't achieve the effect of being a Sherlock Holmes type character. Rather, some other player at the table is likely solving the mystery revealed by the character's skill since the player lacks the personal skill to achieve it. Or perhaps you could have some sort of insight or intelligence check to determine if a character makes correct conclusions, but at that point the player has stopped playing their character in any real fashion. You the DM are now playing the character and the player is no longer involved in a game in which they are a participant, but merely observing you run a simulation on their behalf where they have no role beyond being the random number generator.

It is not possible to separate the mind of the player from the game universe. The mind of the player is a part of the game universe and as such the characters a player can play are limited by their mind. Try this with 5 year olds if you want a real proof of it. Attempts to "remedy" this situation don't result in player empowerment, but player disempowerment. The character acts according to the DM's narration or according to the dictates of the dice. If the character does act according to the player's violition, then you are left with problems like honorable characters can only be played by people who understand honor, funny characters can only be played by humorous players, and players can't play characters that are very much wiser or smarter than they are themselves. A little bit smarter or wiser you might could manage, but big gaps character skill alone can't overcome.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is not possible to separate the mind of the player from the game universe. The mind of the player is a part of the game universe and as such the characters a player can play are limited by their mind. Try this with 5 year olds if you want a real proof of it. Attempts to "remedy" this situation don't result in player empowerment, but player disempowerment. The character acts according to the DM's narration or according to the dictates of the dice. If the character does act according to the player's violition, then you are left with problems like honorable characters can only be played by people who understand honor, funny characters can only be played by humorous players, and players can't play characters that are very much wiser or smarter than they are themselves. A little bit smarter or wiser you might could manage, but big gaps character skill alone can't overcome.

I consider the loss of completely free choice a lesser evil than many people not being able to play characters wrapped around mental or social skills or traits.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't matter whether you use free roleplay or any other methodology, you can't keep an RPG a game without also having the problem that certain subsets of players aren't able to play certain characters who are heavily defined by their mental or social attributes.

Let's imagine the easy case of wanting to play a Sherlock Holmes type character. You can give that player character any amount of investigation, spot hidden, and knowledge skills to gather all the clues you want, but if the player lacks the intelligence to put the clues together then they still won't achieve the effect of being a Sherlock Holmes type character. Rather, some other player at the table is likely solving the mystery revealed by the character's skill since the player lacks the personal skill to achieve it. Or perhaps you could have some sort of insight or intelligence check to determine if a character makes correct conclusions, but at that point the player has stopped playing their character in any real fashion. You the DM are now playing the character and the player is no longer involved in a game in which they are a participant, but merely observing you run a simulation on their behalf where they have no role beyond being the random number generator.

It is not possible to separate the mind of the player from the game universe. The mind of the player is a part of the game universe and as such the characters a player can play are limited by their mind. Try this with 5 year olds if you want a real proof of it. Attempts to "remedy" this situation don't result in player empowerment, but player disempowerment. The character acts according to the DM's narration or according to the dictates of the dice. If the character does act according to the player's violition, then you are left with problems like honorable characters can only be played by people who understand honor, funny characters can only be played by humorous players, and players can't play characters that are very much wiser or smarter than they are themselves. A little bit smarter or wiser you might could manage, but big gaps character skill alone can't overcome.

This seems to discount acting as a skill in itself. Plenty of folks portray characters on screen that possess skills they do not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This seems to discount acting as a skill in itself. Plenty of folks portray characters on screen that possess skills they do not.

They can do that largely because the script allows them to fake it, and they aren't operating outside that script.

 

[Xamnam]

Or perhaps you could have some sort of insight or intelligence check to determine if a character makes correct conclusions, but at that point the player has stopped playing their character in any real fashion. You the DM are now playing the character and the player is no longer involved in a game in which they are a participant, but merely observing you run a simulation on their behalf where they have no role beyond being the random number generator.

I'd like to express my disagreement with this conclusion in the strongest possible terms. Engaging with mechanics meant to model their character is absolutely playing their character*, and participating in the game.


*Even if I agreed with your premise, that still leaves that that particular facet could easily be an absolute minute fraction of their play, with so much territory left to play their character in a "real fashion," a personal term that I think is doing an incredible amount of dismissal.