NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[payn]

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.

Having a skill in deception would lead one to believe they are at least occasionally successful at being...deceptive?

 

[Maxperson]

Having a skill in deception would lead one to believe they are at least occasionally successful at being...deceptive?

Sure, if the person they talk to chooses to believe them. There's nothing anyone with deception skill can do to force someone to believe their words. Nothing. It can't be done. The more convincing/sincere they are the more likely someone will choose to believe them, but it's not a guarantee since it's always the choice of the person they are trying to deceive.

What you are advocating is to give mere words magical power to force belief. There can be 10 strong reasons from the fiction to not believe that person, but somehow his mere words and a roll of the die are going to force the PC to believe? Not a chance.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Having a skill in deception would lead one to believe they are at least occasionally successful at being...deceptive?

Is anybody suggesting such a character would NEVER be successful?

(Well, I suppose if it's a single-use NPC, and the ONE TIME the DM uses that NPC the players are not persuaded, then, yeah....)

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.

People do choose to believe.

If it was some kind of mind control, then when somebody was successful at it, you would think that all listeners would be equally affected. But clearly that is not the case: in a group, some will believe, some will not.

 

[payn]

Is anybody suggesting such a character would NEVER be successful?

(Well, I suppose if it's a single-use NPC, and the ONE TIME the DM uses that NPC the players are not persuaded, then, yeah....)



People do choose to believe.

If it was some kind of mind control, then when somebody was successful at it, you would think that all listeners would be equally affected. But clearly that is not the case: in a group, some will believe, some will not.

Right, I think the lack of context is making it a bit difficult. Im not suggesting the deceptive NPC says, "that lava is actually water, take a swim!" and the PC(s) must swim in it. Maybe, the NPC deceiver gets a little more tricky with it and says, "the lava is actually a magical illusion and isnt real." Again, im not saying the PC(s) must dive in, though id expect them to be curious and suspicious of the claim. Maybe the NPC is right and testing out the theory with a stick or something investigatory is in order.

This is all just theory talking here though, my NPC deceptions are usually a bit more involved then this. Usually its giving the PCs a piece of info they have no reason to doubt. They might go in the wrong direction, or act on a faulty notion. Sometimes the deception is a simple distraction. In any event, I do expect a player to suss out the truth or act in some fashion around the context of the deception.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, if the person they talk to chooses to believe them. There's nothing anyone with deception skill can do to force someone to believe their words. Nothing. It can't be done. The more convincing/sincere they are the more likely someone will choose to believe them, but it's not a guarantee since it's always the choice of the person they are trying to deceive.

Unless, of course, the person is an NPC. Then they don't get a choice if the roll succeeds.

 

[Aldarc]

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."

There are a lot of fun and different TTRPGs out there that you can find between the extremes of "playing cobs and robbers" and the "art-house crime drama."

 

[Wolfpack48]

Unless, of course, the person is an NPC. Then they don't get a choice if the roll succeeds.

I just had an image flash up of that Westworld series remake…

 

[pemerton]

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

As I asked upthread:

How do you handle seduction at your table? Does the GM have to actually seduce the player?

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.

I don't think a NPC being likeable depends solely upon GM portrayal - the players can act, via the play of their PCs and how they engage with the NPC, as if the NPC is likeable or in such a way as to give the NPC the chance to be likeable; and this can then produce the outcome that the NPC in the fiction is likeable (or, at least, liked by the PCs).

For instance, if a player is making a roll, and asks me (as GM), "Is <such-and-such NPC> helping me?", and I reply "yes", then the player will start to see the NPC as likeable although I have barely portrayed the NPC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Unless, of course, the person is an NPC. Then they don't get a choice if the roll succeeds.

Interesting comment, grammatically.

Neither NPCs nor PCs get to “choose” anything. They are imaginary.

But what we might ask is if that character’s “human” gets to make a choice, and if or why that answer is different for GMs and players.

 

[pemerton]

@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."

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."

Whether my Torchbeaer 2e play is "deeper" I can't judge - I do think it is fun, and has memorable and colourful characters (PCs and NPCs) who have memorable and colourful moments.

I also think some of those moments would be less likely to occur in a game without social mechanics. Here's one example:

They decided to return to the Tower of Stars, to try and loot the dome of whatever made it shine, using Lightness of Being. The weather roll once again yielded blustery winds, but then Trouble on the Road was a 6, which improved the weather to crisp and cold - no Toll penalty. Fea-bell's Toll was therefore 2 + 1 for Guide, or 3 in total. Golin's was 2, +2 for his armour - and after some discussion he decided not to take on a role.

Unfortunately the Pathfinder test failed - as I explained, it had been afternoon when they had to leave town and, travelling in the night, they had become confused and wandered into the Troll Fens! And this was only exacerbated by a Troll Haunt trying to trick them and lead them deeper into the swamp. I described the Troll to the players: gaunt yet hulking, with rubbery skin and covered in coarse hair, and preferring to dine on intelligent creatures over all other foods, for the dinner conversation!

The Troll's disposition for Trickery is 10; Fea-bella (being the one who got them lost) rolled her Manipulator 2, helped by Golin, and the PC's disposition was 5. The Troll equipped it's Stubborn Mind (+1D to defend in Trickery contests); Fea-bella wanted to goad it by asking Which is tastier, Elf or Dwarf? and I credited that as an improvised weapon; and Golin equipped a riddle, namely, Whose keys do I have in my pocket?

I scripted A/A/D for the Troll; then Fea-bella scripted M/A/F. I won the first opposed test, and reduced Fea-bella to 1 hp. Then it was Attack vs Attack: the Troll reduced both PCs to zero, but Golin's riddling question reduced it by 4 hp! So a significant compromise was owed: the Troll had indeed led the PCs deep into the Fens, but had itself returned to its lair to consult its Book of Riddles to find out whose keys, indeed, a wandering Dwarf might carry in its pockets.

I think resolving being led by a Troll deep into the swamp, while escaping its clutches by stumping it with a question about "Whose keys do I have in my pockets?" - as it happened, two keys collected by the PC during his adventures - would not be straightforward in a system that (i) used player declarations about hex facings to resolve movement, and (ii) that relied on the players actually being tricked by the GM (eg describing intriguing noises in front of the PCs, or scary noises behind them).

Here's another example, and I'll explain what is significant about it below:

The wandering monster was a single Dire Wolf, which was trying to capture the PCs. The PCs succeeded in the conflict, and Golin captured the Wolf and bound it with his trusty rope; but a minor compromise was owed, and Telemere's bow was broken in the skirmish. (The fiction did establish that the Wolf had closed with him as he was trying to hold it off with his archery.)

<snip>

They decided to bargain with it for service. Golin, who being a Shrewd Dwarven Outcast suffers no Precedence penalty when bargaining (and the Dire Wolf being Precedence 1 vs the PCs' zero), was conflict captain.

The PCs offered to free the Wolf, if it would join their party ("pack"); and were offering it plenty of frog to eat. As the Wolf explained in the common tongue, it wanted them to come with it to the Moathouse. The PCs succeeded, but owed a major compromise - the Wolf allied with them (and chowed down on frog), but they would go with it to the Moathouse.

<snip>

The players then discussed their options. In various conversations with the Wolf they had established that the moathouse housed Gnolls, and Bugbears, as well as human bandits - and about this time they also learned that the leader ("alpha", in Wolf terms) was a Half-Elf. The Wolf couldn't tell them the Half-Elf's name ("two-legs" have unmemorable names from the Wolf's perspective), but recognised Lareth when Fea-bella suggested it.

Not being sure of the way to Nulb, and in desperate need of provisions, the PCs decided to head for the Moathouse. This required a Pathfinder test (due to the camp event result), which failed despite an "Ah-hah!" moment from Stars-wise (as Telemere could make out the comet he was following reflected in a pool of water). So they found their way to the Moathouse, but were Hungry and Thirsty as a result. So full waterskins became empty again.

I described the Moathouse, and they decided they had three options: frontal assault, stealth infiltration, or trickery. They decided to go for trickery: they were emissaries from Roy (Megloss's bandit underling whom they had driven off at the Tower of Stars), seeking to establish an alliance of Lords of the North, banding together for greater security and profit. Fea-bella equipped her half-truths and evasions (improvised weapon); Golin equipped the fact that he was already allied with the Dire Wolf (+1D defence, I decided); and Telemere equipped a "prop", namely, his knowledge of the stars and omens that revealed that the time is right!

The PCs approached the gates and announced themselves, and a bandit underling ran of and fetched their leader. But even thought the bandits were all without "weapons" (and so -1D) and had to use Beginner's Luck Lore Master for their Manoeuvres and Defence, it all went badly for the PCs (which will happen when you are all Injured (-1D) and two of you are Sick on top of that (-1 further D) and one of you can't help because Afraid). Their disposition of 4 was eliminated while the bandits had lost only 2 hit points of their starting 6, and so owed only a minor compromise.

The bandits' response to the PCs' lies had been incredulity, and an insistence that they surrender. Which, having lost the conflict, they did.

The compromise I suggested, which the players accepted, was that as they were marched off to the dungeons, the bandits would not realise that the Dire Wolf was the PCs' ally - so they have a Wolf on the inside!

I think the way that TB2e social conflicts produce compromises - concessions to the losing side, that reflect the way the fiction unfolded during the resolution of the conflict - does tend to produce more colour than a simple back-and-forth between players and GM which comes to an end when the GM decides that their NPC is done (one way or the other).

But the reason I wanted to mention this is because of the binding nature of the outcome on the players - having lost the conflict against the bandits, they are bound by the outcome, which in the example I've given was surrender. In effect, the players' loss in the conflict gives the GM licence to frame a new scene in which the PCs are in the dungeons (and we also had some narration leading up to that, which gave the players a bit of information about the Moathouse). I think the binding nature of the social resolution tends to permit a wider range of scenes to be framed than would otherwise be the case; which is part of what produces memorable and colourful experiences during play.