NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[payn]

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.

That was me and I misunderstood exactly what you were saying. You begun with a point about "NPCs not being PCs" as if PCs have some immunity to mechanics for the sake of being PCs. Which sound super natural or metahuman. What I see now is you were talking about an asymmetrical application of the rules from player and GM side.

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?)

Context matters, persuaded about and to do what exactly?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?)

Because the DM is concerned about running the whole world fairly, not just a single character they understandably are encouraged to protect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. See my deviously-laid trap, above.

Please see my reply.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That was me and I misunderstood exactly what you were saying. You begun with a point about "NPCs not being PCs" as if PCs have some immunity to mechanics for the sake of being PCs. Which sound super natural or metahuman. What I see now is you were talking about an asymmetrical application of the rules from player and GM side.

Well, if you follow the thread from there you'll see that what I'm actually arguing for is perfectly symmetrical application, instead of the partially symmetrical version that I think is being advocated.

Context matters, persuaded about and to do what exactly?

I'm puzzled why the context matters. But lets say the players want to convince a guard to let them into see the king. The GM doesn't want that to happen (for reasons). What's to prevent the GM from either ruling that it fails, or setting an impossibly high DC?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because the DM is concerned about running the whole world fairly, not just a single character they understandably are encouraged to protect.

Sure, that's a plausible scenario.

An equally plausible scenario is that the player is more invested in their one character and wants to portray them with depth and nuance, whereas the DM has a whole world to run and can't be bothered to put too much thought into every NPC.

(EDIT: in other words, you are describing one of many possible mental states, but not any kind of guard rails intrinsic to the rules of the game that will be true for all tables.)

But I'm sure you understand the point I'm making, and where this is going.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, if you follow the thread from there you'll see that what I'm actually arguing for is perfectly symmetrical application, instead of the partially symmetrical version that I think is being advocated.



I'm puzzled why the context matters. But lets say the players want to convince a guard to let them into see the king. The GM doesn't want that to happen (for reasons). What's to prevent the GM from either ruling that it fails, or setting an impossibly high DC?

Fairness, and the understanding that one NPC is not the whole world they are responsible for.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Fairness, and the understanding that one NPC is not the whole world they are responsible for.

And if the DM is not fair?

 

[payn]

I'm puzzled why the context matters. The players want to convince a guard to let them into see the king. The GM doesn't want that to happen (for reasons). What's to prevent the GM from either ruling that it fails, or setting an impossibly high DC?

I dont think much of the impossibly high DC argument because it could be invoked at any time for any reason by a GM. Its even advocated in rulings over rules design of 5E. The GM may not want it to happen, but there should be options for it to happen.

The context matters becasue as I GM games im going to consider it when either setting a DC or negotiating the terms of it happening.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I think the mechanical approach to stuff like deception or persuasion towards the PCs just doesn't work regardless of who sets the DC. It's like rolling for the joke, except you're asking for log term pretence of being deceived or convinced even though the player is not. It just isn't fun to do that and if you do not trust the player to set the DC for things that go against their own interests, how do you expect them to play things that go against their own interests in good faith?

Seriously, if you need the PCs to be convinced or deceived, then just play the NPC so that the convincing/deception happens. If the players really buy it, their reaction will be genuine if it later turns out that were tricked, and they don't need to try to metagame around information their characters are not supposed to have. And if they don't buy it, then so be it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, it could go either way. But I don't think a player's interest in their PC's well-being, encouraged at every turn by the rules, can be considered to be no more a factor than the DMs desire to protect their NPCs. I simply don't think they're at the same level.