NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Thomas Shey]

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.

And as far as I'm concerned "You find the person's arguments convincing" is, too.

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?)

See my posts above. There are ways to set that up where they can at least put their thumb on that scale so they're not out of the loop that don't provide them unlimited immunity to this sort of thing. If that's not satisfactory, its not, but I'm not going to indulge in the assumption that its got to be all-or-nothing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

If you'll note, that's one of the two suggestions I mentioned earlier.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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).

I'm in support of some kind of mechanical enforcement, certainly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm in support of some kind of mechanical enforcement, certainly.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a simple skill versus skill or DC is not a satisfactory resolution for things that may have more individualized interactions, well beyond the scale almost any game does here. I'm not intrinsically a fan of important elements of a game having overly simple and generalized resolution (after all, except in very simple games we don't do that with combat), but there's a lot of things that get done that way because the game doesn't think they're all that important (most knowledge systems in most games for example).

I'm not sure most people are going to want to engage with a game that goes into this in what I'd consider proper detail, but it does mean I'm willing to go a bit beyond "If someone makes a basic DC roll your character will do X" whether it modifies things at the resolution end or the back end.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, but again I ask: where is the line?

As I said, I've described two different approaches twice now.

 

[soviet]

I repeat the way I handle this stuff in Other Worlds: if the NPC makes a successful diplomacy check against you in the royal court, saying we should invade Mordor, it does not mean you are convinced that this is a good idea, or that you must go along with it. It means that you were outmanoeuvered/boxed in. In the eyes of the audience at the Court, you lost. If you still decide not to assist with the invasion, or try to relitigate the argument, then the people around you will lose respect for you and your social capital will be harmed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I repeat the way I handle this stuff in Other Worlds: if the NPC makes a successful diplomacy check against you in the royal court, saying we should invade Mordor, it does not mean you are convinced that this is a good idea, or that you must go along with it. It means that you were outmanoeuvered/boxed in. In the eyes of the audience at the Court, you lost. If you still decide not to assist with the invasion, or try to relitigate the argument, then the people around you will lose respect for you and your social capital will be harmed.

That works in group interactions, but its no solution to one-on-one ones (or even ones where all the involved individuals are PCs).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Because this is not about whether what you do is effective, it is about what your character thinks, what they want to do. That volition is at the core of agency. If I don't get to decide what my character wants, then why the hell I'm even there?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I repeat the way I handle this stuff in Other Worlds: if the NPC makes a successful diplomacy check against you in the royal court, saying we should invade Mordor, it does not mean you are convinced that this is a good idea, or that you must go along with it. It means that you were outmanoeuvered/boxed in. In the eyes of the audience at the Court, you lost. If you still decide not to assist with the invasion, or try to relitigate the argument, then the people around you will lose respect for you and your social capital will be harmed.

Yes. This is good. It affects your situation without telling you what your character should do or think.

 

[Aldarc]

I repeat the way I handle this stuff in Other Worlds: if the NPC makes a successful diplomacy check against you in the royal court, saying we should invade Mordor, it does not mean you are convinced that this is a good idea, or that you must go along with it. It means that you were outmanoeuvered/boxed in. In the eyes of the audience at the Court, you lost. If you still decide not to assist with the invasion, or try to relitigate the argument, then the people around you will lose respect for you and your social capital will be harmed.

This sounds somewhat similar to L5R, which often features social scenes of this nature.

Fate and Cortex do something similar with Stress. While there can be Physical Stress, there can be other forms of Stress that a character can take: e.g., Social, Mental, Corruption, etc. Characters can take "hits" to their Social stress that risk taking them out of the scene.

In Stonetop and Avatar Legends, the equivalent of Persuasion entails the loser having to divulge information honestly (and reasonably) about it would take for them to be persuaded. If the other party does that, then it's on the loser to then hold up their end of the gentleman's agreement, as per the game rules. PCs can try to convince NPCs, but losing the roll can mean that the GM can potentially do a hard move that turns the move back on the PC.