NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

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

They do in a sense that it is up to the GM to determine what sort of things the NPC can be convinced in the first place. It is perfectly fine for the GM to determine that the NPC is not going to budge on the issue regardless of what the PCs say.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

It literally does not come up. But if it did the PCs reaction would be 100% in the hands of the player.

 

[pemerton]

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.

@Micah Sweet was replying to @Maxperson, who is saying that the target of deception (the PC or NPC) does have a choice as to whether or not to believe the trickster. So on this (in my view implausible) account of human cognition, the player's choice corresponds directly to their character's choice. And the question being asked is, why is there no such corresponding choice to be made by the GM (assuming that the GM, in playing their NPC, follows the outcome of the player's social skill roll).

 

[pemerton]

It literally does not come up. But if it did the PCs reaction would be 100% in the hands of the player.

Ah.

I'm not sure if you saw my Prince Valiant examples - seduction has come up multiple times, and in the two examples I posted the success of the attempt was determined once by the use of a GM-fiat ability ("Incite Lust") and once by a suitably weighted opposed check (the seducer's roll of Presence + Glamourie getting twice as many successes as the PC's roll of Presence).

EDIT:
Suppose a game has a DEX-check, Balance skill or similar sort of resolution framework for resolving my PC walking a tightrope, or fighting on a cliff-edge, or similar. No matter how much my "mental model" of my PC has it that they are poised, graceful and unflappable, the outcomes of that resolution framework make it possible that my PC will take a tumble.

Now that tumble might be narrated in different ways - maybe my guy fights with all the skill of the Man in Black, but an even better swordsman forces my guy to the edge of, and then over the cliff; or maybe, especially if the mood of the table is more light-hearted, my guy slips from the tightrope, falls into the river, and looks a bit of a dunce.

I see the seduction example the same way: Sir Morgath, despite his resolution to remain faithful to his wife Elizabeth, finds himself simply unable to resist the charming and beautiful Lady Lorette; Sir Gerren, the day before he is to enter into a political marriage which it is agreed will remain unconsummated, throws care to the wind and enjoys a romp in the bushes with the same Lady.

The player doesn't always get to decide whether their PC, in actuality, lives up to the ideal or image they have for them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I asked upthread: How do you handle seduction at your table? Does the GM have to actually seduce the player?

They must present the NPC in such manner that they are appealing to the PC. And this has happened in my games several times.

But what I would find jarring is a situation where the dice says that my character finds an NPC appealing whilst the GMs portrayal of them makes me feel my character would not fancy them. Then we have a disconnect between my imagination and the rules, and to me that's the worst kind of immersion breaker.

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.

But it is not the roll that caused it, it was the action of the NPC, i.e them being helpful which makes them more likeable. How the NPC act is of course part of their portrayal.

In any case, I find in interesting, yet hard to understand, that you're so fine with mechanics that can dictate what the PCs want. We've talked several times about the importance of the players being able to set their own goals. But if NPCs can manipulate via social mechanics the wants of the PCs, then that undermines the player agency of setting the character's goals in a major way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure if you saw my Prince Valiant examples - seduction has come up multiple times, and in the two examples I posted the success of the attempt was determined once by the use of a GM-fiat ability ("Incite Lust") and once by a suitably weighted opposed check (the seducer's roll of Presence + Glamourie getting twice as many successes as the PC's roll of Presence).

Yeah, I'd hate this. Stuff like this definitely puts this game into my "never play" list.

 

[pemerton]

I find in interesting, yet hard to understand, that you're so fine with mechanics that can dictate what the PCs want. We've talked several times about the importance of the players being able to set their own goals. But if NPCs can manipulate via social mechanics the wants of the PCs, then that undermines the player agency of setting the character's goals in a major way.

How so?

In both Torchbearer and Burning Wheel, there are a few very special abilities - that are "magical" in the fiction of both systems - that permit the GM to oblige the player to rewrite a Belief. (Or vice versa - that permit a player to oblige the GM to rewrite a NPC's Belief.)

Whether a player chooses to rewrite a Belief in response to something that happens as the upshot of a social conflict is something for them.

EDIT: I'm not sure what you mean by "dictate what the PCs want". PCs want all sorts of things, from a happy life, to some food because they're hungry, to carrying the golden idol out of the ancient temple, to pleasing this person who is pleasing to them.

To refer to an example I discussed not very far upthread, an outcome that mandates the PCs surrender to the bandits establishes something that the PCs want here and now - ie they think their best option, in the circumstances, is to surrender - but that doesn't stop the players setting their PCs' goals, establishing relevant priorities for their PCs, etc.

I mean, in that same example of play, all three players received either Fate or Persona awards for pursuing or attaining their Goal:

Fea-bella got 1 Fate for gallows humour (during the capture conflict with the Wolf), and 3 Persona, for mouldbreaker (when she relied on Golin even though Dwarves are greedy and cannot be trusted), for Creed (because she had certainly aided Telemere in these dark times) and for achieving her Goal of escaping the swamp.

Golin got 2 Fate, for using his Instinct to forage when the opportunity arises (to recover the frog bodies) and for acting on his Belief that Elves are fickle and unstable, and 3 Persona, for achieving his Goal of exiting the swamp, for wrestling with is Creed (that Elves are lost in dreams and need grounding in reality; during the camp he had been encouraging Fea-bella to re-memorise her Wizard's Aegis, which she used when fighting the frogs), and for MVP (as he was the one who had secured the alliance with the Wolf).

Telemere got 4 Fate, for using his Instinct (to spot the Creeping Ooze), for acting on his Belief that one should see things through to their end, for pursing his Goal of finding the meaning of the comet omen, and for gallows humour in the bargaining with the Wolf. He got 1 Persona, for teamworker.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fair enough. Pretend I asked that instead.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How so?

In both Torchbearer and Burning Wheel, there are a few very special abilities - that are "magical" in the fiction of both systems - that permit the GM to oblige the player to rewrite a Belief. (Or vice versa - that permit a player to oblige the GM to rewrite a NPC's Belief.)

Whether a player chooses to rewrite a Belief in response to something that happens as the upshot of a social conflict is something for them.

How it is their choice? If the NPC social mechanics have teeth, then certainly the NPC can convince the PC to change their belief? And I understand that you're speaking of 'beliefs' as defined game concept, but I mean it in more general sense. To me there is pretty obvious implication that if the NPCs can affect the PCs wants via social mechanics, then in effect that limits the players agency of determining those wants which in turn limits their agency to set goals.

The position that this is fine would be perfectly consistent and understandable to me, even if not one I would agree with, but the position that this doesn't happen seems incoherent to me.

 

[pemerton]

How it is their choice? If the NPC social mechanics have teeth, then certainly the NPC can convince the PC to change their belief? And I understand that you're speaking of 'beliefs' as defined game concept, but I mean it in more general sense. To me there is pretty obvious implication that if the NPCs can affect the PCs wants via social mechanics, then in effect that limits the players agency of determining those wants which in turn limits their agency to set goals.

I'm not familiar with Exalted 2e, which is the system you mentioned upthread. But the issue you describe doesn't arise in the systems I've spoken about in this thread - Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, Marvel Heroic RP.

Before reading your post and writing this reply, I edited the post to which you replied - I added a bit more about how Torchbearer works, with a bit more actual play illustration.