NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

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.)

One way to encourage people to play this way is reward the players with XP/inspiration/fatepoints/etc when they play their character's flaws. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of this and I don't think this sort of bribery is generally necessary with good players, but it is definitely much better and way less obtrusive than mechanics that compel the PC to behave in certain way.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

And likewise I'd love to sit at your table, based on what you describe.

But there are still DMs out there who put their plot above the fun of the table. Or (worse) play their NPCs as if they were their own characters, because really they wish they were on the other side of the table. (Seen a lot of that.)

So I was just making the point that even though you sound great, I don't agree with an argument that players need guardrails but DMs don't. (And, again, I don't actually think either side needs guardrails. Just want to make sure that's clear.)

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

I've been all-in on Shadowdark, although I've been reading Dragonbane and am finding it appealing.

One reason I stopped enjoying The One Ring is because of clunky, mechanistic, board-gamey social interaction rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One way to encourage people to play this way is reward the players with XP/inspiration/fatepoints/etc when they play their character's flaws. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of this and I don't think this sort of bribery is generally necessary with good players, but it is definitely much better and way less obtrusive than mechanics that compel the PC to behave in certain way.

Not a fan of those kinds of narrative mechanics myself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And likewise I'd love to sit at your table, based on what you describe.

But there are still DMs out there who put their plot above the fun of the table. Or (worse) play their NPCs as if they were their own characters, because really they wish they were on the other side of the table. (Seen a lot of that.)

So I was just making the point that even though you sound great, I don't agree with an argument that players need guardrails but DMs don't. (And, again, I don't actually think either side needs guardrails. Just want to make sure that's clear.)



I've been all-in on Shadowdark, although I've been reading Dragonbane and am finding it appealing.

I've read Shadowdark, but haven't had an opportunity to play it yet. Would very much like to do so.

 

[payn]

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 have no intent to protect story or plot from players. I want them to interact with the game mileu and not the metagame.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't think rules are needed to protect against either. I'm just pointing out the flaws in arguing that protections are only needed on one side.

Agreed, I think GMs need to fairly engage the mileu as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have no intent to protect story or plot from players. I want them to interact with the game mileu and not the metagame.

Agreed, I think GMs need to fairly engage the mileu as well.

I'm definitely not accusing anybody here of protecting plots (or of treating their favorite NPC as their own PC).

And I would hope that nobody is specifically accusing anybody here of playing their PCs as "immune" to making poor decisions.

But both things happen in the wild. A lot.

 

[payn]

One way to encourage people to play this way is reward the players with XP/inspiration/fatepoints/etc when they play their character's flaws. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of this and I don't think this sort of bribery is generally necessary with good players, but it is definitely much better and way less obtrusive than mechanics that compel the PC to behave in certain way.

There are folks that operate under the stick and carrot philosophy. Game mechanics make them engage the game that they wouldnt otherwise. I dont operate that way, and in fact I dont like XP at all. Though, I have had conversations with folks that honestly asked me why, "their character would ever pick a lock if they didnt get XP for it?". To which I just dont know how to answer that.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

I feel like you have very carefully responded in such a way as to completely avoid responding to my point.

Likewise, there feels to me like an attempt to semantically evade even addressing your own process of play by simultaneously saying you aren't protecting anyone's story, but you are also making things happen.

Building a world and making events happen in it is a story. It's a plot. It might not have a fixed end you might be flexible and open to different resolutions and wandering paths, but it's still a story you are collaborating in creating.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've read Shadowdark, but haven't had an opportunity to play it yet. Would very much like to do so.

Upthread @Aldarc described it as "having fewer tools" because skills are not enumerated. But really I think it's the opposite: by not enumerating tools, my players seem to think they have more tools. For example, I see players trying things that don't fit their class stereotype more often than in D&D.

Caveat: I play with a lot of new players, so for some their first experience of RPGs is Shadowdark. Which means they aren't bringing baggage from other games, assuming how it's supposed to work.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I am not discounting #2, as this is something that I have also talked about elsewhere. In some respects, I think that this is something of a mostly D&D (and ilk) problem. When the GM can put their thumb on the scale to set a DC with a binary outcome, this will be an issue. However, I nevertheless prefer at least having some mechanical rules to facilitate this process rather than having none at all.

Upthread @Aldarc described it as "having fewer tools" because skills are not enumerated. But really I think it's the opposite: by not enumerating tools, my players seem to think they have more tools. For example, I see players trying things that don't fit their class stereotype more often than in D&D.

Caveat: I play with a lot of new players, so for some their first experience of RPGs is Shadowdark. Which means they aren't bringing baggage from other games, assuming how it's supposed to work.

I also said that it was about having reliable and consistent abilities by which players enjoy using as means of expressing their character. Shadowdark is not into character builds. 5e D&D and PF2 are. You will likely find that the people who find creating builds for their character fun are also the people who enjoy this sort of "mechanical problem-solving" gameplay.