NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

Seems to me the opposite is true! Can you suggest a study or principle I could go read about that suggests these things are logical/deterministic/predictable?

You don't think human behavior can be quantified and predicted?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok, but if you are free to make whatever subsequent decision you want, what's the point of being told that you are persuaded, intimidated, deceived, etc.

Or, to elaborate, if the rules of the game determine that "you are persuaded" then the freedom to make whatever decision you want can and often does lead to dissonance. You are persuaded, and yet you refuse the offer? That makes no sense. Or it dilutes the meaning of "you are..." to such a degree that the statement is meaningless.

But if you tweak the description to say "the NPC is very persuasive" then there's no dissonance when followed by, "Yeah, but I'm still not buying it."

Sure there is. If there is always the option for the PC to go against the results of the roll no matter how effective the NPC is, then the NPC is not in fact effective, cannot be, and the roll becomes meaningless.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That you can be influenced doesn't mean it is not your decision. Let the NPC make their argument, the GM will roleplay it. The players will decide what to think of it, by the interaction of their mental models of the character and the GM's performance. I have had several times NPCs trick PCs and convince of them to do things that might go against their interests. No dice rolls needed.

The literal basic structure of the game is that the GM presents the situation and the players decide how their characters react to it. That's what is happening here, and I have no desire to replace my players with the dice.

Except often you do, and in virtually every other situation to some degree. Combat and exploration both have a heavy dose of rules text when you try to actually do something or affect anything. What makes the social pillar so special that PCs should be immune to it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

You don't think human behavior can be quantified and predicted?

Only statistically, not individually.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Let the NPC make their argument, the GM will roleplay it. The players will decide what to think of it.

What this suddenly made me realize is that I see NPC arguments/persuasions/deceptions as more like setting description, and less like attacks in combat.

"You enter a room with a cobwebs in the corners and a closed chest against the far wall. What do you do?"

"The NPC makes an eloquent argument in favor of you releasing him. What do you do?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

And the opposite is true: someone can get an undesired result while being particularly effective.

Once again I fall back on "People are more creative and nuanced than dice."

Yeah, but that's just as true in physical activities. The fact a lot of people privilege mental and social ones over those doesn't make me think its a good idea. Player decisions should matter in all of those; player decisions shouldn't be the only factor in any of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure there is. If there is always the option for the PC to go against the results of the roll no matter how effective the NPC is, then the NPC is not in fact effective, cannot be, and the roll becomes meaningless.

I'm going to take a little bit of the opposite: the NPC roll can be effective but not sufficient. That's why I'm in favor of making a successful social roll apply a thumb on the scale (penalties for not acting in accordance or benefits for doing so) but mandate specific actions. Or alternatively allow the player to define DCs or modifiers for what they're trying to do (that probably would be my preference as I mentioned earlier in this thread).

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, but that's just as true in physical activities. The fact a lot of people privilege mental and social ones over those doesn't make me think its a good idea. Player decisions should matter in all of those; player decisions shouldn't be the only factor in any of them.

Ok, but again I ask: where is the line? When do players get to decide what they think and do, and when does the GM require some kind of roll? Why do players get to choose (for example, again) whether to enage in combat or flee? Why is that different from choosing whether to believe an NPC?

If the game loop is simply:

• GM describes setting
• Players choose actions
• GM describes results, calling for a roll if necessary
• Repeat

then there's never any question. Players always choose actions, but they can't be certain of the outcome of those actions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, but that's just as true in physical activities. The fact a lot of people privilege mental and social ones over those doesn't make me think its a good idea. Player decisions should matter in all of those; player decisions shouldn't be the only factor in any of them.

Getting hit by a sword swung by an NPC isn't telling the player "you decide not to dodge". It's narrating the outcome of an action declaration.

Telling the player "you believe the NPC" is, indirectly, telling them what action declarations to take in the future. (And if it isn't doing so, then what's the point of saying it?)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Newest thought:

In combat, even if you are losing badly, and will almost inevitably have a TPK, I've never heard the argument that players should be required to take "logical" actions, whether that's drinking a healing potion, fleeing, or whatever. If you want to defy the gods and keep swinging your sword, go for it.

So maybe the answer to "social mechanics" is a system where you are never required to act a certain way, but the odds against having a good outcome if you defy the dice keep increasing? I don't know exactly what that would look like, but maybe it would satisfy both camps.