NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

@Celebrim is absolutely right. You cannot eliminate the player skill without eliminating the player agency.

I also agree with @Celebrim

Which is why I'm happy to let players decide when to follow the dice, and when to use their own abilities.

If a player with a high Int character wants to say, "I'll try to dazzle the Baron with a complicated explanation of the link between the structure of the Cosmos and the foundations of magic" I'll run with that. No roll required (unless there's some significant impact of failing.)

If a player with a low Int character figures out the puzzle/trap, I want them to be able to use it! It's great if they then roleplay "accidentally" solving it, but that's not necessary.

 

[Bill Zebub]

How I think that happens is through action declarations. By declaring actions for their character that rely on the character's skills and abilities, especially in high-stakes situations where the outcome is in doubt, the players/GM have a chance to portray their character in a way that sticks. If a player says their PC doesn't find the NPC's performance particularly compelling, casting doubt on the NPC's abilities as an entertainer, a strong result for the NPC in an ability check can have the effect of putting pressure on that player to eat their words.

Agree with your whole post, but just quoting this part to expand on it.

If a player wants their character to be un-moved by a great performance, there can be consequences. Assuming their dislike is apparent (either because the player declares an action expressing it or....drumroll...one or more NPCs make successful Insight checks!) they might lose standing with the other NPCs or the performer. Or the performer might even call out the PC and ridicule them in front of their adoring audience, creating challenges in the future when interacting with those NPCs.

EDIT: I'm not saying the above should be done as 'punishment' for refusing to go along with the dice. It's leveraging their roleplaying choices to introduce complications to the story. And overcoming complications is what the whole game is about.

 

[pemerton]

The GM can certainly narrate that the NPC has a reputation as an objectively and expertly competent and gifted performer, a virtuoso in their craft, is well liked and regarded by all, etc, but I don't think that narration should ever contain "you (the PC) are entertained/influenced by their performance" because that's for the player to decide in playing their character.

<snip>

If a player says their PC doesn't find the NPC's performance particularly compelling, casting doubt on the NPC's abilities as an entertainer, a strong result for the NPC in an ability check can have the effect of putting pressure on that player to eat their words.

Can you say more about how your reconcile/integrate these two paragraphs?

So my take is that "Charisma" is somehow not like the other five attributes. There is no objective truth to it.

I don't know how this is supposed to fit with the game system, though. I mean, if you as a player make a CHA (Performance) roll, is the GM just at liberty to decide that some random NPC is unmoved by your message?

If the answer is "no", then where does that leave us? I think there are multiple possible answers, but not all of them fit comfortably with the idea of stats and skills as representational.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Can you say more about how your reconcile/integrate these two paragraphs?

I don't know how this is supposed to fit with the game system, though. I mean, if you as a player make a CHA (Performance) roll, is the GM just at liberty to decide that some random NPC is unmoved by your message?

If the answer is "no", then where does that leave us? I think there are multiple possible answers, but not all of them fit comfortably with the idea of stats and skills as representational.

To answer I will lean into 5e rules here. Although I don't like 5e overall, I do like it's philosophy regarding how to use dice rolls.

If the GM asks for me to make a Cha (Performance) roll it's because they think the outcome is uncertain, and failure would have consequences, and therefore wants to use dice. Why the GM would then ignore the roll, I don't know. Because if they had already decided that my attempt would fail, because they know something about their NPCs, they should simply have ruled thus.

If the GM always caused my attempts at performance to fail, I would probably find a new GM. Just like, as a GM, I would stop inviting a player who always made choices that reduced the fun for everybody else.

EDIT: If stats are representational it also raises the question of what dice rolling represents. If I have high Con, but fail a check to resist poison, what does that represent? Is it truly random whether or not a poison affects us? Does a failure mean we don't happen to be able to resist that particular poison? Isn't it kind of strange if everybody except the high Con dwarf resists the poison? But we still accept that some people are affected, and others aren't.

5e (because it keeps coming back to that, even if this thread is meant to be system neutral) doesn't have a mechanic for resisting or otherwise reacting to an NPC's performance. They roll, and somehow the result of that roll is supposed to apply to the entire audience. I say: announce the result, and let the players decide what their reaction is.

 

[soviet]

I suppose one way you could do it is to have the NPC make their Persuasion check and then the resulting score is the DC of Wisdom saves for the PCs to not be impressed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suppose one way you could do it is to have the NPC make their Persuasion check and then the resulting score is the DC of Wisdom saves for the PCs to not be impressed.

That makes sense mechanically, and yet the phrase "Wisdom saves for the PCs to not be impressed" turns my stomach. I acknowledge this is my opinion/preference and not a One True Way, but I really do not understand the appeal of needing mechanics to tell me when my character is impressed. A Charm spell? Sure. But everyday, mundane persuasion/performance/deception? I don't get it.

The arguments on the other side always come down to some version of "NPCs roll dice to hit you with a sword. Why should it be different when they try to persuade you?"

I'll turn that around and ask, "Why should every type of action be resolved the same way?" Why does it make the game better to do this with a dice roll, rather than just let players roleplay however they want?

 

[pemerton]

That makes sense mechanically, and yet the phrase "Wisdom saves for the PCs to not be impressed" turns my stomach. I acknowledge this is my opinion/preference and not a One True Way, but I really do not understand the appeal of needing mechanics to tell me when my character is impressed. A Charm spell? Sure. But everyday, mundane persuasion/performance/deception? I don't get it.

Verisimilitude is one reason. To create surprises in the fiction is another.

The arguments on the other side always come down to some version of "NPCs roll dice to hit you with a sword. Why should it be different when they try to persuade you?"

I'll turn that around and ask, "Why should every type of action be resolved the same way?" Why does it make the game better to do this with a dice roll, rather than just let players roleplay however they want?

Well, we could flip it around again - why not let the player specify whether or not they avoid being stabbed?

Where do we want surprises, and where do we want the direction of play to be dictated by someone making decisions that reflect their authority over some component of the fiction? Classic D&D made combat, and saving throws, the places where surprises were to be found. But even early RPGs carved the terrain differently - in Traveller (1977), for instance, the morale rules apply to PCs in just the same way that they apply to NPCs.

I personally find the game more colourful when PCs can be tricked, swindled, plain old persuaded, etc. It's something I really enjoy in Torchbearer. I can certainly enjoy games without such possibilities - eg 4e D&D, Classic Traveller - but their absence is not something that makes those games more appealing to me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Verisimilitude is one reason. To create surprises in the fiction is another.

I don't see how this would increase verisimilitude.

Well, we could flip it around again - why not let the player specify whether or not they avoid being stabbed?

I have played freeform roleplay in which you do that. I have also been in LARPs where the players hit each other with fake swords, and whether you get hit or hit the enemy depends on the players real-life fencing skills.

Where do we want surprises, and where do we want the direction of play to be dictated by someone making decisions that reflect their authority over some component of the fiction? Classic D&D made combat, and saving throws, the places where surprises were to be found. But even early RPGs carved the terrain differently - in Traveller (1977), for instance, the morale rules apply to PCs in just the same way that they apply to NPCs.

I personally find the game more colourful when PCs can be tricked, swindled, plain old persuaded, etc. It's something I really enjoy in Torchbearer. I can certainly enjoy games without such possibilities - eg 4e D&D, Classic Traveller - but their absence is not something that makes those games more appealing to me.

PCs can be tricked or persuaded. Happens all the time. It just happens via the interaction being roleplayed, not because the dice told us so. And like "NPC rolled 25 on the joke roll, now laugh" just isn't the same than the GM playing the NPC as actually funny, it is not same pretending to be tricked than to actually be tricked.

And why do we often approach this differently than the fights? Because we can. We can actually do the conversations live, we cannot (outside LARPs) do the fights live. To use the mechnics when it is not needed just seems confused to me.

And to me as player my main purpose in the game is to run the mental model of my character and then portray that mental model. To me most jarring and immersion breaking thing possible, is a mechanic telling me my character should do or feel something my mental model says they wouldn't. And more the system has stuff that dictate things over my mental model, less I feel that I as player need to be there. The GM can roll the personality mechanic tables or whatever to see what my character would feel and do, I can go home to do something more intersting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Verisimilitude is one reason. To create surprises in the fiction is another.

I don't think I agree with verisimilitude. Not just in this case, but in any game mechanic. Does dice rolling...pure randomness...ever result in verisimilitude? (If you had said "consistency"....as in treating all resolution the same...I might have agreed.)

And players can do surprising things as easily...or more easily?...than dice rolling.

Well, we could flip it around again - why not let the player specify whether or not they avoid being stabbed?

I would say that it's because avoiding getting stabbed isn't a thought, or a state of mind. It's an action you attempt to take.

Where do we want surprises, and where do we want the direction of play to be dictated by someone making decisions that reflect their authority over some component of the fiction? Classic D&D made combat, and saving throws, the places where surprises were to be found. But even early RPGs carved the terrain differently - in Traveller (1977), for instance, the morale rules apply to PCs in just the same way that they apply to NPCs.

I personally find the game more colourful when PCs can be tricked, swindled, plain old persuaded, etc. It's something I really enjoy in Torchbearer. I can certainly enjoy games without such possibilities - eg 4e D&D, Classic Traveller - but their absence is not something that makes those games more appealing to me.

Yeah, and it always ends up in the same place: preference. I just don't feel like my character and I are one when the game (or the GM) tells me what my character would think or do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I personally find the game more colourful when PCs can be tricked, swindled, plain old persuaded, etc.

Actually, one more specific response: I prefer it when the players are tricked, swindled, persuaded, etc. I like feeling that cold chill down my spine when I, the player, have a sudden realization that we have greatly, dangerously, perhaps disastrously, erred. I don't so much enjoy pretending to feel that way.