NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fair enough. I'm not really worried about it though, and wouldn't be as a player either.

 

[Greg K]

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

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[payn]

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.

Oh, but spells are fine tho...

 

[Greg K]

Oh, but spells are fine tho...

don't forget about mental powers too.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, but spells are fine tho...

Spells are fine. The reason is that players accept that magic can do these things. Magic is magic. Words are nothing but words. For instance, there's nothing you could possibly say to me in person that would get me to lose control of my emotions. There nothing you could say to me to make me give you my D&D stuff. Magic might be able to.

With magic the choice isn't mine. With your words, the choice is 100% mine.

 

[Greg K]

There nothing you could say to me to make me give you my D&D stuff.

So, if people armed with guns and threatening you with immediate direct threats of armed violence to you and/or family members in your presence, you are not going to give up your D&D stuff?

 

[Maxperson]

So, if people armed with guns and threatening you with immediate direct threats of armed violence to you and/or family members in your presence, you are not going to give up your D&D stuff?

1) If that happened, it would 100% not be the words that did it. 2) I could make the choice not to and take the risk. People do that.

A friend of mine was approached on Hollywood Boulevard by someone who demanded his wallet and showed him a gun. He chose to just walk away from the guy. Nothing happened. But it could have. He could have been shot. He made that choice. It wasn't made for him by the guy with the gun and the threat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Spells are fine. The reason is that players accept that magic can do these things. Magic is magic. Words are nothing but words. For instance, there's nothing you could possibly say to me in person that would get me to lose control of my emotions. There nothing you could say to me to make me give you my D&D stuff. Magic might be able to.

With magic the choice isn't mine. With your words, the choice is 100% mine.

Players can't accept their PCs being influenced by anything short of some form of supernaturally-based mind control?

 

[Maxperson]

Players can't accept their PCs being influenced by anything short of some form of supernaturally-based mind control?

Because normal words simply cannot remove choice from anyone. Not you. Not me. Not PCs. We always have a choice, even if it's a bad one.

 

[Greg K]

1) If that happened, it would 100% not be the words that did it.

To me, it would be the words, if they were deceiving you into believing that they would go through with it, but had no actual intention of going through with it.

2) I could make the choice not to and take the risk. People do that.

Agreed. However, even self defense courses, they tell people in such situations to just give them the money, jewelry, etc. as material things are not worth risking their life.

A friend of mine was approached on Hollywood Boulevard by someone who demanded his wallet and showed him a gun. He chose to just walk away from the guy. Nothing happened. But it could have. He could have been shot. He made that choice. It wasn't made for him by the guy with the gun and the threat.

Yep. and apparently the person with the gun had no intention of following through with violence. Maybe, your friend was good at reading the person (sense motive vs deception).

When it comes to rpgs, most of the 100+ games I have encountered over the years have combat skills, athletic skills, knowledge skills, interaction skills, etc. which reflect the character's abilities not the player's abilities. Uncertain outcomes are resolved with die rolls-typically with opposed rolls (or saving throws) when two characters are in opposition (including combat, athletics competition, etc). I, therefore, don't see a reason why social interaction outcomes between characters should be any different. Ymmv.
edit: I do, however, also like mechanics that allow a resource for a bonus for players to alter roll, reward players for going along with failed social outcome, and/or allow GM to spend a resource to compel players to go along with failed social outcome.