NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, I don't agree. Mechanics are there for a reason, and I don't see a reason why players should have to be skilled socializers to play social-focused characters.

That being said, If your prefer such players essentially "get good" if they want to play such a PC, that's fine if it's what you and your group wants.

I was not talking about the players, I was talking about the GM. The players still can roll against the NPCs. The same issues around metaknowledge and immersion really do not apply to the GM.

Though the player still needs to roleplay their persuasive character too, to a sufficient degree that the DC for the roll can be adjudicated in the manner I described earlier. I'm sure some people are better at that than others, but the character's skill still matters. It is same than with the combat really; your PC's stats and the tactics the player chooses both matter, and some people are better with tactics than some others.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I wouldn't know. I don't run games with forced plots.

You've never had a GM who forced the plot?

Or do you only GM? If that's the case, I could understand a position of thinking guardrails only need to apply to players.

EDIT: that last part may have sounded snarky, but that was not intended.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

We can generalize this in a way that doesn't presume dysfunctional DMing. Both players and DMs are incentivized to protect their fun, because fun is the reason we are playing. For players this almost always involves protecting their PC's from harm. For DMs this is a bit more abstract and involves protecting the scenario from being derailed because the alternative is perceived as being less fun. This can involve railroading because the DM is too inflexible or is too much in director stance trying to create the perfect story they've imagined, but it doesn't have to be.

For example, in the second or third session of a D&D campaign I was running my party encountered a farmer with an old nag on the road. One of the players in the group - an inexperienced and young player - decided it would be fun to use his intimidate skill to rob the farmer of his horse. And in fact, he did roll high enough that by my own standards the social skill check should have worked - the farmer should have relinquished his horse to the player.

But I ruled the attempt failed anyway. I put my finger on the scale and railroaded the player. I did this not to protect "my story" in some sense, but to protect the fun of the group. Had I allowed this to happen, the game we had agreed to play wouldn't have happened. The young and inexperienced PC would have successfully committed highway robbery, a crime punishable by death by hanging in the game universe. His comrades would have been perceived as accessories to the crime, standing by and watching it happen. The farmer, would have certainly reported the crime to the town watch, and they would have certainly formed a posse to detain the party for their crimes. As first level characters, there was no way this was going to resolve itself in an interesting manner compared to ignoring the crime and letting the plot proceed. Even if they had survived to escape, they'd be wanted as bandits and while that could be fun it wouldn't have been nearly as fun for the whole group as what I had planned. The group of players was just too inexperienced with my style of realistic gritty play to understand that this lark wasn't a lark or a fun bit of roleplay, but campaign wrecking. I had to both ignore my own rules and spend some time explaining things out of character to get everyone to understand how serious the action would be perceived.

It was rail-roading, but not based on my ego or inflexibility as a GM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You've never had a GM who forced the plot?

Or do you only GM? If that's the case, I could understand a position of thinking guardrails only need to apply to players.

Well, that sounds insulting.

I do play. But my DMs don't force a plot. At worst they present one and let the players do what they will.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, that sounds insulting.

We crossed posts. See my edit. Sorry.

I do play. But my DMs don't force a plot. At worst they present one and let the players do what they will.

Fair enough. But I can assure you it happens a lot.

And, even so, I'd rather not have the guardrails to prevent them from doing so. I prefer to find better DMs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We can generalize this in a way that doesn't presume dysfunctional DMing. Both players and DMs are incentivized to protect their fun, because fun is the reason we are playing. For players this almost always involves protecting their PC's from harm. For DMs this is a bit more abstract and involves protecting the scenario from being derailed because the alternative is perceived as being less fun. This can involve railroading because the DM is too inflexible or is too much in director stance trying to create the perfect story they've imagined, but it doesn't have to be.

For example, in the second or third session of a D&D campaign I was running my party encountered a farmer with an old nag on the road. One of the players in the group - an inexperienced and young player - decided it would be fun to use his intimidate skill to rob the farmer of his horse. And in fact, he did roll high enough that by my own standards the social skill check should have worked - the farmer should have relinquished his horse to the player.

But I ruled the attempt failed anyway. I put my finger on the scale and railroaded the player. I did this not to protect "my story" in some sense, but to protect the fun of the group. Had I allowed this to happen, the game we had agreed to play wouldn't have happened. The young and inexperienced PC would have successfully committed highway robbery, a crime punishable by death by hanging in the game universe. His comrades would have been perceived as accessories to the crime, standing by and watching it happen. The farmer, would have certainly reported the crime to the town watch, and they would have certainly formed a posse to detain the party for their crimes. As first level characters, there was no way this was going to resolve itself in an interesting manner compared to ignoring the crime and letting the plot proceed. Even if they had survived to escape, they'd be wanted as bandits and while that could be fun it wouldn't have been nearly as fun for the whole group as what I had planned. The group of players was just too inexperienced with my style of realistic gritty play to understand that this lark wasn't a lark or a fun bit of roleplay, but campaign wrecking. I had to both ignore my own rules and spend some time explaining things out of character to get everyone to understand how serious the action would be perceived.

It was rail-roading, but not based on my ego or inflexibility as a GM.

As a DM, I get my fun from building a world and letting the players loose in it to explore and interact with it through their PCs. It's not about protecting anyone's story, including my own. It's about seeing what happens, making things happen, and exploring the implications of such.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As a DM, I get my fun from building a world and letting the players loose in it to explore and interact with it through their PCs. It's not about protecting anyone's story, including my own. It's about seeing what happens, making things happen, and exploring the implications of such.

As a Player, I get my fun both from overcoming challenges but also from leaning into the weaknesses of my character to drive the story in unexpected directions. I have fun making sub-optimal decisions that seem in-character, even if it complicates things for myself and the other PCs.

Does that persuade you that it's fine to leave resolution of social interactions to the whim of the player? (I suspect not.)

 

[Aldarc]

Exact same answer you would have to the unfair DM, whatever that answer is. That was my point.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but kind of like @payn, I don't particularly find the issue of "the unfair GM" to be persuasive, since the alternative is simply an unfair GM without rules for mediating social interactions.

Oh, I totally have. The one really persuasive argument (other than my own nat-20 brilliance, of course) I've seen in this thread is yours and @pemerton's, which is really "I, or people I know, like to play this way."

But what it persuades me of is that it's a good thing RPGs come in a wide variety of flavors, not that there's one game for everybody.

What I don't find persuasive is that the rules need to protect the story from the wrong sort of players, but those same rules can assume DMs are fine.

I think that it's less about protecting any story from "the wrong sort of players" for me, as a lot of the discussion for me is just as often good players with good intentions. That is what I was talking about here. This is why I subsequently said that it's not just jerks who engage in psychological self-deception or post hoc reasoning when it comes to roleplaying their character when it comes to social interaction scenarios. Bad players and good players are all humans, and this is an issue of human psychology.

One of the benefits, IME, of having mechanical resolution processes available in play is that I (and others who have made similar comments) don't have to worry as much about roleplaying my character with integrity. Everyone understands and tacitly agrees to this process as part of playing the game. This is how having a system, rules, and mechanics as an intermediary for social interaction can personally be a boon and not a bane for roleplaying my character. I understand that your mileage varies, but this affords me greater creative freedom and not less. Furthermore, the resolution process may push my character in ways that even I didn't foresee or imagine so that I am also surprised by the outcomes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a Player, I get my fun both from overcoming challenges but also from leaning into the weaknesses of my character to drive the story in unexpected directions. I have fun making sub-optimal decisions that seem in-character, even if it complicates things for myself and the other PCs.

Does that persuade you that it's fine to leave resolution of social interactions to the whim of the player? (I suspect not.)

It would persuade me to do so for you, certainly.

What games do you habitually play? I think that affects these things a lot.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but kind of like @payn, I don't particularly find the issue of "the unfair GM" to be persuasive, since the alternative is simply an unfair GM without rules for mediating social interactions.


I think that it's less about protecting any story from "the wrong sort of players" for me, as a lot of the discussion for me is just as often good players with good intentions. That is what I was talking about here. This is why I subsequently said that it's not just jerks who engage in psychological self-deception or post hoc reasoning when it comes to roleplaying their character when it comes to social interaction scenarios. Bad players and good players are all humans, and this is an issue of human psychology.

One of the benefits, IME, of having mechanical resolution processes available in play is that I (and others who have made similar comments) don't have to worry as much about roleplaying my character with integrity. Everyone understands and tacitly agrees to this process as part of playing the game. This is how having a system, rules, and mechanics as an intermediary for social interaction can personally be a boon and not a bane for roleplaying my character. I understand that your mileage varies, but this affords me greater creative freedom and not less. Furthermore, the resolution process may push my character in ways that even I didn't foresee or imagine so that I am also surprised by the outcomes.

Two general reactions:

1. I think we are still agreeing that people have different preferences
2. That said, for those who want to make it about human nature and psychology, without labeling anybody "the wrong sort", it still applies equally to both GMs and players. GMs can be well-intentioned and still be blind to how they are putting their thumb on the scale to satisfy their own desires.