NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

OK. Then if you're playing a system with PC-affecting social rules, why would you adopt a "mental model" of your PC that contradicts those rules? Eg if you're playing Classic Traveller, which requires PCs to make morale checks under certain conditions, why would you build a mental model of your PC as fearless?

(For you, these may be merely rhetorical questions with which you agree. But my post was addressed to @Crimson Longinus .)

I wouldn't. But this does not mean that my mental model and the mechanics will necessarily agree on case by case basis. We might have a situation where my mental model says that the character is scared, but the rules say they're not, or vice versa. The mental model I am talking about, is not some static write up of how the character is, it is immersive first person representation of the character.

 

[Maxperson]

Tell that to Obi Wan Kenobi.

Why? He never did anything with the skill that was outrageous. He did use the suggestion spell a few times, but magic is different.

 

[Maxperson]

I am in the camp that player characters are subject to Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation as it is not uncommon for major characters to be affected by social skills. Mal is deceived and seduced by Saffron. Both Zoe and Simon have intimidated Jayne in Firefly. Guy Gardner gets intimidated by Batman in JLA. Those are just a few examples. So, I don't see why PCs in an rpg should be any different.

Because books and video are a different form of media than an RPG. None of those guys were PCs or NPCs.

In an RPG social skills deprive players of agency if allowed to work against the PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

no but the npc should be able to convince the NPC's that what he is saying is something he completely believes. (even if he doesn't) . If a PC can roll to determine if an NPC believes thier BS why is it loss of agency if an NPC can do the same thing. I think you are confusing agency with the player actions. A player can know that what they've been told is BS but thier character may have to believe it and then <gasp> they have to role play the character........

How is the player being forced to roleplay his character differently a loss of player agency?! Um, because the player is being forced to play in a specific way that he would not otherwise play. That's 100% a removal of player agency to decide what his character says, believes and does.

 

[Maxperson]

Out of curiosity, how do PCs detect lies then?

Zone of Truth. Skills do not detect lies. They can help, but they aren't a lie detector.

 

[Maxperson]

I've got a few people in the group I run who play their characters like this. The player might thing something is suspicious, but if the character doesn't have a clue they'll just head right into the situation without a second thought. I like this kind of player, they make things more fun.

Yeah. If I'm suspicious, but my PC isn't socially observant and it isn't super obvious in the fiction, I want act on those suspicions with my PC. That's MY choice, though.

 

[Maxperson]

According to DnD Beyond,

Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.​

So suppose a NPC performs. And the GM rolls for their performance, and the result is (let's say) 25. It seems hard to remain consistent with what the rules say, and yet leave it open to player to decide whether or not they think the performance was well-done and delightful.

Not really. While I can and will inform the players that the dancer put on a flawless performance, one of the characters might hate dance, so all dance is crappy. It's not my job to force that PC to believe otherwise. It's the player's job to decide.

Often the player will choose to match the roll, but sometimes not.

 

[Maxperson]

So propaganda, advertising, social media operant conditioning, and all that stuff are wholly ineffective? They merely bring something to a perfectly rational person's attention that they can choose to accept or reject from their position of perfect self control?

There are a lot of gullible people out there and those techniques work on many people. They work because those people choose to believe them. They don't work on other people, because those people choose not to believe them. Perfect self control has nothing to do with it.

I was talking to an ex-girlfriend(not an ex at the time) about needing an oil change for my car. She immediately chimed in with, "Use brand X, it's the best." I asked her how she knew that and she said, "They said so in their commercial." I explained to her that they can say those things even if they aren't the best.

She chose to believe the commercial. I chose not to. Were they the best? They may have been despite my decision not to believe the commercial.

That's how it works with PCs. They get to choose who they believe. Sometimes they will be right. Sometimes they will be wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure there is. If there is always the option for the PC to go against the results of the roll no matter how effective the NPC is, then the NPC is not in fact effective, cannot be, and the roll becomes meaningless.

Not necessarily. I played with one DM who required us to go with the roll unless there was a good reason not to. Most of the time there wasn't a good reason not to. One time, though, my character failed against a deception check, yet I still announced I didn't believe the NPC. The DM asked me what my basis was for ignoring the roll, so I pointed out multiple things said and observed in the game that made the statement very suspect. The DM nodded and was like, "Okay, you don't believe him."

That preserves both player agency and gives the roll meaning. I didn't really care for it, but with the option to not believe the NPC if there was an actual reason not to, I accepted it. After all, even in games where social skills can't be used on PCs I generally don't just assume an NPC is lying without something to go on from the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

How a DM portrays their NPCs is not built into the game. No reason they can't be treated as just as "real" as the PC is to their player. It being asymmetrical is a choice.

That's not true. There is a reason to treat them differently. As the DM I control thousands of monsters and NPCs. If the players use a social skill on one of them and succeed, I have lost a microfraction of my agency. The player, though, only plays one individual. Loss of agency over his PC means the loss of 100% of his agency, which is a tremendous amount in comparison.