NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Are you worried YOU would do that, or are you worried other people would?

If the latter, I don’t think fear of what other people might do is the best basis for game design.

I want combat mechanics to follow the dice because I don’t want the responsibility of making it suspenseful and exciting, not because I worry about others cheating. If I could just hit (or be missed) at will then combat would lose most of its appeal.

On the other hand, I do want to decide what my character thinks and what (potentially ill-advised) actions he/she chooses. To have that determined for me no longer feels like I am my character.

What other people might do, or how they might roleplay? Not my business to dictate that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you worried YOU would do that, or are you worried other people would?

If the latter, I don’t think fear of what other people might do is the best basis for game design.

I want combat mechanics to follow the dice because I don’t want the responsibility of making it suspenseful and exciting, not because I worry about others cheating. If I could just hit (or be missed) at will then combat would lose most of its appeal.

On the other hand, I do want to decide what my character thinks and what (potentially ill-advised) actions he/she chooses. To have that determined for me no longer feels like I am my character.

What other people might do, or how they might roleplay? Not my business to dictate that.

I just want things to make sense.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Sorry, I missed that. I know you support mechanics that encourage but don’t require behaviors, but I didn’t see where you suggested how to determine when that gets used. How do you decide, in a way that is consistent to the players, when to evoke such mechanics?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry, I missed that. I know you support mechanics that encourage but don’t require behaviors, but I didn’t see where you suggested how to determine when that gets used. How do you decide, in a way that is consistent to the players, when to evoke such mechanics?

Whenever they lose out in a social contest?

 

[Bill Zebub]

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?

If the DM called for a roll (I’m assuming 5e here) it means the DM felt the outcome was uncertain and asked for dice. If the DM wanted it to fail then he/she could have gone straight there.

If you want THAT kind of symmetry between PCs and NPCs, where the player gets to decide if there’s uncertainty, then sure. I’d go along with that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Whenever they lose out in a social contest?

So any time you talk to NPCs you have to start rolling dice?

I wasn’t asking when to follow the dice, I was asking when to take agency away from players and give it to dice.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just want things to make sense.

Ok, if by "sense" you mean symmetry, as I already posted I think that's easily achievable in 5e, even if you bring along DMing baggage from earlier editions.

Social skills are NOT magical powers or spells or special abilities. They are die modifers to be applied to attempted actions. Right?

Let's skip the 5e guidance where the DM gets to grant automatic success or failure, and just assume the outcome is uncertain. The next step is that the DM will determine a DC for the attempt, and the player must roll equal to or higher than that. If the goal is clearly ludicrous, the DM can just pick a stupidly high DC, and/or impose modifiers such as disadvantage.

The player rolls, and the DM abides by the decision.

If your idea of "making sense" is that the entire play loop should be symmetric, in which we swap every reference to "PC" with "NPC" and vice versa, and then do the same for "player" and "DM", then I'm 100% with you.

Letting the player choose the DC when NPCs attempt to influence them is, in my mind, perfect agency.

 

[Celebrim]

@Celebrim is absolutely right. You cannot eliminate the player skill without eliminating the player agency. As long as the game contains decisions that matter that the players get to make using their own brains, the player skill will have an impact.

That's actually the most concise version of my thought I've seen written, so well done.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

But if you as a GM are yourself a gifted actor and entertainer and have crafted by some means a skillful script or monologue whether improvised or planned, and the players react to that NPC as being a likeable, funny, witty and so forth, then you don't have to tell the players how to react. They'll react as would be natural to a person who is likeable, funny, witty, and so forth.

Does not matter what is on the NPC's character sheet, as a GM you can only achieve that by doing the performance yourself. I can say in my notes, "The NPC is funny", but that's a useless note. The NPC is funny if the player's perception of him is that he's funny, and crafting that requires more than a note unless you are a genius comic yourself.

There is in the process of play a big difference between showing and telling, just as there is in different narrative mediums. You can never achieve the effect of telling that you could by showing, and skills and dice rolls can't replace that.

 

[aramis erak]

I not talking about the loss of completely free choice. I'm talking about the loss of all choice.

The only way to let a player of any mental or social skill or trait play a character of any mental or social skill or trait is take all volition and agency from the player. This is an absolute truth.

Bovine feces.
it's only an absolute truth if, and only if, you do absolutely zero abstractions.

It's only a volition drain if one considers volition to directly equate to character success solely upon the skill of the player.
that's a playstyle issue, and damned near an edition war declaration. A dogwhistle, if you will, for a certain OSR-favored playstyle that is nearly impossible to enjoy for many who are mentally disabled, or are socially impaired.