NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

So I don't have any "no metagaming" rules generally, not just in this situation.

I'm always interested in understanding what the root differences in opinion are that lead to specific differences in practice. I strongly suspect that a lot of this debate comes down to differing opinions about metagaming. (Which is probably not the bottom turtle.)

In any event, I'm with you on this 100%.

 

[Bedrockgames]

From my perspective, I think ultimately your complaint resolves down to how bad most social resolution systems are and how little attention they play to real world nuance - like getting someone to fall for a lie depends not just on how charming you are but also how good the lie is. The vast majority of cons depend not just on getting someone to believe a lie, but on exploiting weaknesses in the character of the mark - typically their greed. A lot of cons rely on getting the mark to believe they are the one tricking and exploiting you, which of course isn't going to work with someone who doesn't want to exploit or trick someone. So the character of the person you are trying to manipulate matters. It might be hard to exploit the greed of an honorable person, but easy to exploit their pity - for example. This is why I'm always taking the conversation and making a judgement about what circumstance modifiers apply to the particular conversation we've had when trying to figure out how difficult the social test is.

I wouldn't quite agree here. It is this to a degree, but it is more about not interfering with the ability of the PC or GM to make that assessment for themselves about the argument. One of the things I don't like about some social mechanics is they can take this decision out of the hands of the player or GM. I prefer a softer approach where it might inform that determination but doesn't make the determination for them

But, more than that, I would like to direct everyone's attention to what you call the "other reasons". Because the real reason that an NPC doesn't roll to convince or deceive a PC isn't volition and player agency, but rather because again - the mind of the player is always present in the game universe. There can be no consistent or effective or reasonable rules around the idea of "don't metagame". I have come to the conclusion that asking a player to not metagame is really impossible, since the player is asked to imagine what they would do if they didn't know something, and that is impossible to know. If you are presented with a puzzle or a riddle, but you have been told the answer to a puzzle or riddle, there is no way to approach that puzzle or riddle as if you didn't know the answer. Everything you do in that circumstance, whether solving the riddle or not solving the riddle is still metagaming.

This wasn't the only thing I had in mind but it is a factor. I like players being in the shoes of their characters. So I'd rather they interface with things like solving of puzzles or being persuaded by an NPC but actually experiencing those things directly, not having a mechanic solve that. There will be exceptions of course. For example while it would be great to have a player pitted against the mind of an NPC in a chess match, sometimes, for expediency, that stuff has to be done with ether a roll or a very fast analog

So instead of trying to force the players to not metagame and try to force the players to act out as if they have been deceived when they haven't, I simply deceive them myself and don't leave it up to a die role. Their character may not be deceived, and if they are wise and fortunate I may tell them, "No, you are pretty sure the NPC is lying." But the reverse isn't really possible. I can't tell them, "No, your character believes them" if in fact the player doesn't, because then they have to metagame what their character would do and that's not really possible because in reality even if deceived they might take "trust but verify" steps or blindly do things that would reveal the deceit. After all, when the players themselves are deceived that is how they behave. So why should I ask them to try to imagine how they'd behave in the absence of knowing the answer to the riddle? They can't. It's not fair and it's really impossible. Ultimately that would end up being based on my opinion of how they would behave, and why should that rule the day?

So I don't have any "no metagaming" rules generally, not just in this situation.

This is why I generally play up the NPC based on their ranks. And I only ever ask for rolls or roll when there is some doubt. For example if an NPC is trying to persuade the party and I am talking as the NPC making the case, and a player asks me "How believable is this guy", I may make a roll, or if the players are pleading to the king for clemency, and I don't know how the king would feel about the case they made, I may ask for a roll to help inform my assessment

 

[payn]

Interesting analogy. Are you saying that the player shouldn't be allowed to walk through the trap and take the damage? If you are, then I disagree. (After all, the probably don't know how much damage it is, and even if it's survivable, HP are a resource.)

I wouldn't say shouldn't be able to, but if a player is going to operate that way, im not likely to keep gaming with them. This is more a game play philosophy then a rules position for me.

So what's the equivalent in social interactions? A couple such scenarios have been offered up-thread, but in general the idea is that there is an in-game cost to ignoring the result of social rolls.

Again, there are binary results and there are contextual results. Eating a blade trap is loss of HP. Ignoring social mechanics will likely have adventure progress implications. Things might get more difficult, or they might get easier.

I'm fine with all of that. In fact I kind of love it. But while it's easy to think of scenarios where there is such a cost, in practice it is probably hard to figure out what that cost would be in all scenarios.

Right. There is never going to be a table that directly accounts for resource loss in this regard. Another reason why I think RPGs (or at least D&D) should separate binary and contextual mechanics.

Ok, but (again) who sets the DC when a PC is being deceived/persuaded/intimidated/etc.? I think we all agree that the DM decides how hard it is to deceive the guard. Who decides how hard it is to deceive the PC?

Thats gonna largely depend on the system. 5E has bounded accuracy so the DC targets are pretty routine and understood. Other systems let the GM set it as they see fit, which obviously requires trust. Some games have offsetting checks where attacker and target both roll for the result.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interesting analogy. Are you saying that the player shouldn't be allowed to walk through the trap and take the damage? If you are, then I disagree. (After all, the probably don't know how much damage it is, and even if it's survivable, HP are a resource.)

So what's the equivalent in social interactions? A couple such scenarios have been offered up-thread, but in general the idea is that there is an in-game cost to ignoring the result of social rolls.

I'm fine with all of that. In fact I kind of love it. But while it's easy to think of scenarios where there is such a cost, in practice it is probably hard to figure out what that cost would be in all scenarios.



Ok, but (again) who sets the DC when a PC is being deceived/persuaded/intimidated/etc.? I think we all agree that the DM decides how hard it is to deceive the guard. Who decides how hard it is to deceive the PC?

I would love to let the player decide the DC. Doing so, however, frequently requires the player to go against their PCs best interests, as it only works if the player is willing to abide by a roll that doesn't go their way. Hard not to place that DC unrealistically high. Not that every player is going to do these things, but I think the concern needs to be put out there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe this will clarify (using an example from upthread):

1. "If you don't help us I will expose your affair with the Count's daughter to the whole court!"
2. I'll threaten to tell the court about the man's affair if he doesn't help us.
3. Can I roll Persuasion to see if he'll help us?

I'm just saying that I greatly prefer #1 or #2 (and, really, I prefer #2 myself) to #3.

Right. I strongly prefer #1, but #2 is acceptable too. But #3 would not be a valid action declaration to me, it produces way too incomplete fiction and doesn't actually contain sufficient information to adjudicate the DC for the roll. At minimum the player needs to provide a) what they want from the NPC, and b) why the NPC should agree. Then I can decide DC based on how willing the NPC is to do it and how compelling the reason is for them.

Also, this way roleplaing the social situation a bit, the PCs discussing with the NPCs feeds to the resolution of potential persuasion, as that discussion is an opportunity for the players to learn about what sort of person the NPC is and what sort of arguments might be convincing to them. Like if you're talking to an orc warlord that cares about honour and glory then the DC to persuade them to help you will be higher if you appeal to their greed than if you appeal to their honour.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Repeatedly in this thread, a worry has been expressed that if players are free to ignore "the results of social interaction rolls" then they will ignore anything that isn't beneficial to their character. One person even accused me of wanting to play "fantasy super friends" or something like that.

Question: if the DM gets to decide how persuadable their NPCs are, what's to prevent them from doing the same thing?

(Yes, it's a trick question. You spot the trap without having to roll. How do you disarm it?)

 

[Bedrockgames]

After all, when the players themselves are deceived that is how they behave. So why should I ask them to try to imagine how they'd behave in the absence of knowing the answer to the riddle? They can't. It's not fair and it's really impossible. Ultimately that would end up being based on my opinion of how they would behave, and why should that rule the day?

So I don't have any "no metagaming" rules generally, not just in this situation.

I generally agree here. The only place where I like for systems to dictate this is when it comes to things like magical effects or really powerful real world effects like fear and adrenaline (anyone who has been in a harrowing and fearful situation probably realizes they don't act the way they think they would when the adrenaline and fear kick in-----you might be more reluctant to act, you might panic, etc: so some kind of fear mechanic is something I can get behind)

 

[Aldarc]

Fair. I am saying "button pushing" pejoratively. Can you suggest terminology for "invoking an ability listed on a character sheet instead of trying to think creatively about the problem"?

Before you submitted your response, I added an edit to my post that you may want to check out.

I'm not sure if there is more positively-framed terminology for the phenomenon off the top of my head. I think that what you are seeing represents a certain desire, particularly within Neo-Trad gaming, of players wanting to showcase their character as expressed through their various mechanical abilities. For OSR, this is antithetical to creative expression. For Neo-Trad, this is part of their creative expression.

I suppose you could call it "mechanical problem-solving."

I have said elsewhere about another issue that WotC apparently wanted to reduce the amount of "Mother May I" abilities - their words explicitly - for D&D 2024 and create more reliable abilities for PCs. "Mother May I" is also something of a pejorative, which I am aware of, but I think that can be why mechanical problem-solving is appealing for other people. It provides a more reliable way of providing predictable and consistent results/narrative control for the players that they can use without necessarily having to get GM approval for succeeding.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would love to let the player decide the DC. Doing so, however, frequently requires the player to go against their PCs best interests, as it only works if the player is willing to abide by a roll that doesn't go their way. Hard not to place that DC unrealistically high. Not that every player is going to do these things, but I think the concern needs to be put out there.

Yeah. See my deviously-laid trap, above.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Before you submitted your response, I added an edit to my post that you may want to check out.

I'm not sure if there is more positively-framed terminology for the phenomenon off the top of my head. I think that what you are seeing represents a certain desire, particularly within Neo-Trad gaming, of players wanting to showcase their character as expressed through their various mechanical abilities.

I suppose you could call it "mechanical problem-solving."

I have said elsewhere about another issue that WotC apparently wanted to reduce the amount of "Mother May I" abilities - their words explicitly - for D&D 2024 and create more reliable abilities for PCs. "Mother May I" is also something of a pejorative, which I am aware of, but I think that can be why mechanical problem-solving is appealing for other people. It provides a more reliable way of providing predictable and consistent results/narrative control for the players that they can use without necessarily having to get GM approval for succeeding.

Here I strongly suspect the skill and attitude of the DM comes into play. I've certainly played with DMs whose response to clever ideas is to resist them because it circumvents their anticipated story path. So they say no, or set DCs too high.

And I'll freely admit that I feel that! When players think of something that seemingly undoes my preparation, I feel that urge to resist it.

But, really, I want them to have fun. And having your ideas, however crazy, actually work is really fun.

I think if more DMs were willing to let go a little bit, and let players succeed without invoking hard-coded rules, more players would lean into that style of play. That's what I see in my groups, anyway.