NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

It's still my choice to believe someone or not.

I agree. When he told me that, I thought it was a dumb decision. It's still a choice, though. The gun and words didn't make it for him.

This is the real world and all of that plays into our choice to believe or not.

What bothers me the most is that there can be tons clues in the game that the guy isn't trustworthy and you should never believe him, but if he mind control persuasions me, I'll trust him. That's a reality break of the 1st order. It's a nonsensical result. The player should ultimately make that decision. A successful roll on one side or the other can influence the player, but it can't make his decision for him. At least it shouldn't.

I've walked out of a game where that sort of thing was happening.

Opposed mechanics should have influence, but should not dictate social situations.

How do you think the roll should influence the PC, mechanically?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Multiple groups. Three groups(two I played in, one I DM) all play that way. The last three I've gotten into.

Ok.

 

[Maxperson]

How do you think the roll should influence the PC, mechanically?

I didn't say mechanically. I said influence. If I tell the player who just succeeded at an insight check that the NPCs demeanor seems truthful, that should influence how the player roleplays.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok.

I'm just saying that players like that aren't as rare as you are making them out to be.

 

[MGibster]

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.

The cornerstone of my DMing style is that I know what the NPCs are going to do assuming the player characters do not intervene. When the PC comes and uses a social skill, or just bashes an NPCs brains out with a club, I don't really view it as a loss of agency on my part. Not in the least. I'm the guy who sets up the pins for them to knock down. I want my NPCs to react to what the PCs are doing.

 

[Maxperson]

The cornerstone of my DMing style is that I know what the NPCs are going to do assuming the player characters do not intervene. When the PC comes and uses a social skill, or just bashes an NPCs brains out with a club, I don't really view it as a loss of agency on my part. Not in the least. I'm the guy who sets up the pins for them to knock down. I want my NPCs to react to what the PCs are doing.

I don't really view it that way, either. I was just pointing out how it could be viewed that way. Maybe it's just so small neither of us can feel it. Players feel it keenly, though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm just saying that players like that aren't as rare as you are making them out to be.

In your personal experience, it appears so.

 

[Maxperson]

In your personal experience, it appears so.

I've seen a lot of folks here say the same thing, so they must also be experiencing it. Otherwise they would not be saying that. It's not just my experience.

Players like that may not be growing on trees, but they are not rare, either.

 

[pemerton]

Spells are fine. The reason is that players accept that magic can do these things.

A player playing Classic Traveller similarly accepts the morale rules. Etc, etc.

 

[aramis erak]

A player playing Classic Traveller similarly accepts the morale rules. Etc, etc.

Traveller explicitly notes morale is for PCs...

MORALE
A party of adventurers which sustains casualties in an encounter will ultimately break or rout if it does not achieve victory.

At the point in time when 20% of a party is unconscious or killed, the party must begin making morale throws. For an average party, 7+ is the throw to stand, or not break and run. Valiant parties may have a higher throw. DMs are allowed: +I if the party is a military unit; +I if a leader (leader skill) is present; tl if the leader has any tactical skill; -2 if the leader is killed (for two rounds at least, and until a new leader takes control); -2 if casualties (unconscious and dead) exceed 50%.

Bolding original, linebreaks removed. This is the extent of the textual §§ Morale rule for CT...
Note that the rule doesn't reference NPCs...
Note that The Traveller Book includes tables and recapitulation pages, Morale is on the page 45 tables & recaps...

MORALE
Roll for morale every combat round, once 25% of a party has become unconscious or been killed.
Throw 7+ for the group to stand (not flee); DMs allowed:
If military or mercenary unit. . +1
If any leader skill present . . . +1
If the leader has tactical skill . . +1
If casualties (unconscious or dead) exceed 50% -2
If leader unconscious or dead. . -2 (for 2 combat rounds only; then a new leader takes control.)

Bolding original, line breaks removed, no change to text content.

Note that Bk1-77 and Bk1-81 both have only the textual version, not the recapitulation... they don't have the recap/tables pages.

Classic Traveller is the only game I'm aware of where only players are mentioned in the morale rules...
(noting that animals have a different morale equivalent.)
Not that any Traveller ref I've known has limited it to PCs...