NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

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?

In every situation, no matter what, with no mechanical consequence for ignoring the dice? It's ok to just step out of the setting anytime you feel like (especially if not doing could lead to negative effects for your PC)? My concern is that it's simply to easy to ignore detrimental social interactions if you can just decide it always goes your way.

 

[soviet]

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

'The NPC intimidates you. There is no-one else in the room. You don't have to back away, but if you swallow your fear and continue to stand up to him, you will have a penalty to your attacks/other rolls'.

'The NPC persuades/deceives you. There is no-one else in the room. You don't have to go along with what he says, but if you don't, you will appear rude and unreasonable and will have a penalty to all future interactions'.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In every situation, no matter what, with no mechanical consequence for ignoring the dice? It's ok to just step out of the setting anytime you feel like (especially if not doing could lead to negative effects for your PC)? My concern is that it's simply to easy to ignore detrimental social interactions if you can just decide it always goes your way.

I don't even understand what you're talking about. Social situations can "go badly" in many ways without the GM getting to roleplay my character because the dice said so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't even understand what you're talking about. Social situations can "go bad" in many ways without the GM getting to roleplay my character because the dice said so.

Isn't using a persuasion roll as a PC against an NPC successfully you getting to roleplay the DM's character because the dice said so?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Isn't using a persuasion roll as a PC against an NPC successfully you getting to roleplay the DM's character because the dice said so?

No, as ultimately it is for the GM to decide how the roll affects the NPC. But you're correct that the situation is asymmetrical, in a sense that PCs often get to affect NPCs via social rolls in a way NPCs can't affect PCs. This is because NPCs and PCs serve a different purposes in the game. The PC is the player's sole vehicle for affecting the events of the game, it is the players sole purpose in this game to control this one character. NPCs are not like that. The GM is in control of the entire world; they do not identify with and immerse in the NPCs in the same way than the players do with their characters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

'The NPC intimidates you. There is no-one else in the room. You don't have to back away, but if you swallow your fear and continue to stand up to him, you will have a penalty to your attacks/other rolls'.

Okay, that's a version of what I've suggested a couple times.

I wasn't getting that from your earlier example because the penalties were all external; in other words, they weren't about resisting the influence but other people's reactions to you doing so. I don't think that's the same thing.

'The NPC persuades/deceives you. There is no-one else in the room. You don't have to go along with what he says, but if you don't, you will appear rude and unreasonable and will have a penalty to all future interactions'.

This one I don't think is so good because its entirely possible you simply won't care.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, as ultimately it is for the GM to decide how the roll affects the NPC. But you're correct that the situation is asymmetrical, in a sense that PCs often get to affect NPCs via social rolls in a way NPCs can't affect PCs. This is because NPCs and PCs serve a different purposes in the game. The PC is the player's sole vehicle for affecting the events of the game, it is the players sole purpose in this game to control this one character. NPCs are not like that. The GM is in control of the entire world; they do not identify with and immerse in the NPCs in the same way than the players do with their characters.

How a DM portrays their NPCs is not built into the game. No reason they can't be treated as just as "real" as the PC is to their player. It being asymmetrical is a choice.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How a DM portrays their NPCs is not built into the game. No reason they can't be treated as just as "real" as the PC is to their player. It being asymmetrical is a choice.

Yes. The correct one. Alternatively you can get rid of social skills altogether.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. The correct one. Alternatively you can get rid of social skills altogether.

Your point of view. Correct for you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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, great example.