NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

Which begs the question of why PCs get to use dice rolls to affect NPCs, if the reverse is not true.

Because the players invested character building resources for those skills, because it allows people to play characters that are more socially competent than them, and because they have players agency of which we care about.

That being said, I am perfectly fine with games which do not have player side social skills either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes. And the GM as the NPC needs to speak those words. And the player as the PC needs to be affected by them.

I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. NPCs affect the PCs in my game all the time, it just is via roleplaying, not via dice rolls.

The problem with this is it cuts out a whole lot of elements we wouldn't tolerate in any other context, like the environment the words are said in, the connotational games a skilled speaker can bring to bear, and a bunch of other things that the GM will not, and functionally cannot bring to bear because he's not speaking with all that background and context. Its not fundamentally different than the fact there are elements in every combat that even a detailed combat system can't pay attention to because you can't monitor every slippery rock, every moment of sun glinting in someone's eyes, and the specific combat experience and training all participants have which will vary and interact in unpredictable ways.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem with this is it cuts out a whole lot of elements we wouldn't tolerate in any other context, like the environment the words are said in, the connotational games a skilled speaker can bring to bear, and a bunch of other things that the GM will not, and functionally cannot bring to bear because he's not speaking with all that background and context. Its not fundamentally different than the fact there are elements in every combat that even a detailed combat system can't pay attention to because you can't monitor every slippery rock, every moment of sun glinting in someone's eyes, and the specific combat experience and training all participants have which will vary and interact in unpredictable ways.

A lot of it can be directly portrayed and more can be described. And the GM has the power of framing, they have the knowledge about the characters and the players they can use to choose words and portrayals that have an impact. There is a lot which can be done to affect how the NPC is perceived.

And the ultimately the issue is that you cannot substitute genuine impressions with numbers. The numbers telling that the NPC is likeable will not make the players feel that they like the NPC, that can be only achieved by portraying the NPC as likeable. Could the game proceed without real feelings? Yes it could, but it would be hollow and, at least to me, pointless.

 

[Piperken]

I'm building an NPC adversary for a campaign (a cleric of Asmodeus), and their key Deity skill is deception.

But then it occurred to me that rolling to see if the NPC successfully deceived the PC's takes away player agency. That is, the player should be able to decide whether their PC believes the NPC or not.

So, from that perspective, social skill abilities for NPCs are a waste of a skill "slot". (Game mechanically speaking, not from a roleplay perspective)

Any thoughts on this? How do you/would you handle it?)

A very long thread. My initial thought was to ask whether the party was aware the adversary is a cleric of Asmodeus?

I quite like adversarial characters that are open. Should one entertain that offer from a Red Wizard of Thay, for example; because you just never know...

 

[Thomas Shey]

A lot of it can be directly portrayed and more can be described. And the GM has the power of framing, they have the knowledge about the characters and the players they can use to choose words and portrayals that have an impact. There is a lot which can be done to affect how the NPC is perceived.

And the ultimately the issue is that you cannot substitute genuine impressions with numbers. The numbers telling that the NPC is likeable will not make the players feel that they like the NPC, that can be only achieved by portraying the NPC as likeable. Could the game proceed without real feelings? Yes it could, but it would be hollow and, at least to me, pointless.

Or, you can expect the players to accept that they're not going to get the same experience as their characters are any more than they're going to get the experience their characters do in any number of other ways, allow the mechanics and dice to bridge the gap, and go with the flow.

I'll be a little blunt here: I don't ask you to not want what you want, but I find the process of putting this on this kind of a privileged pleading based, in general, on the assumption of superior outcomes from it that I've not seen to be nearly as common as a lot of people paint it as--and its not like I've not played in games that go all the way from middlin' detailed social mechanics to none at all over a long period of time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or, you can expect the players to accept that they're not going to get the same experience as their characters are any more than they're going to get the experience their characters do in any number of other ways, allow the mechanics and dice to bridge the gap, and go with the flow.

You are not of course going to get the exact same experience as really being there. But that's the goal. We are trying to get close to it.

I'll be a little blunt here: I don't ask you to not want what you want, but I find the process of putting this on this kind of a privileged pleading based, in general, on the assumption of superior outcomes from it that I've not seen to be nearly as common as a lot of people paint it as--and its not like I've not played in games that go all the way from middlin' detailed social mechanics to none at all over a long period of time.

I am not telling anyone what to do. I am telling you what works for me and what doesn't, and the reasons why I feel this way. If to you a NPC having a high likeability score evokes a similar feeling than that NPC being portrayed as likeable then good for you. It doesn't for me.

 

[Hriston]

Any thoughts on this?

When I have an NPC lie to the party, I treat it the same as with any other hidden information in the game. Like, if the party is walking up to a hidden trap, do I just tell the players it's a normal hallway with nothing unusual to see, so I can spring it on them? No, that would be a gotcha, so I give them a hint instead that, in hindsight, is enough to warrant further investigation. That way I've presented a playable situation.

It's the same with a lying NPC. I telegraph the heck out of it. That's because I want the players to interact with the fact the NPC is lying to their characters. The last thing I want is to deliver the lie straight faced, speaking as the NPC, and have the players fall for it and proceed to act on my misinformation because then, in that instance of play, I've taken agency away from them, and they aren't really playing a game. They're just going along with what I've decided for them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

@pemerton I apologize I haven't responded to a few of your posts earlier back, that were in response to mine.

As you know, I read a lot of your Torchbearer summaries and find it interesting. But I struggle to explain why that mode of play doesn't appeal to me. Or, at least, it doesn't appeal to me to so much that I'll invest in the books, learn a new style, and play Torchbearer instead of more traditional RPGs.

And I acknowledge that what you are describing is a different and maybe deeper kind of roleplaying than I'm used to. It's a bit like:

"I really love playing cops and robbers!"
"Oh! Do you want to participate in this art-house crime drama I am filming?"
"Uh...I just want to play cops and robbers."

 

[Bill Zebub]

And the other thing I'm thinking about is that you clearly love the Torchbearer approach, and so I take your posts not as "you guys are doing this wrong" but rather "I'm having so much fun and I want to share it with you!"

And I feel that, because I'm often in that same place. But it seems to get interpreted by others as, "You are telling me I'm playing wrong."

 

[Maxperson]

Not only that, but people are only fooled by words if they choose to be apparently. Which is really dumb, why would anybody ever choose to be deceived? Thats the entire point of deception is that you were mislead and didnt catch on to the fact.

You are incorrectly stating the argument. They choose to believe or not. They do not choose to be deceived or not. The deceiver cannot force the other person to believe with his words. They do not have that power. He can only try and then it's up to the other person to choose to believe or not.