NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[payn]

Agency is what a player has his PC believes and what actions he takes.

In all social situations, since agency is belief, I have to have complete choice or my agency is gone.

With the dex check, I can decide my PC think he will 100% succeed, possibly succeed or fail, or 100% has no chance. My agency is preserved with regard to deciding what the PC believes. Now to agency in deciding what the PC does. What he does is try to walk a tightrope. Does he try to walk a tightrope? Yes that is the action he takes. Success or failure isn't an action. That's action resolution, which is not a part of player agency.

Telling the player that his PC can't try to walk the tightrope is a no no, since it removes his agency. Telling him that the result of his attempt to walk the tightrope is that he falls, is not a no no, since action resolution does not take away player agency.

If the NPC convinces the PC that the chance of failure walking a tight rope is remote (when it is not), dont they still have the agency of deciding to walk the tight rope, albeit, with warped sense of chance?

 

[TwoSix]

It is simple logic. If NPC can convince PCs via social rules, then it follows they can influence the goals of the PC. There is no way around it.

If a NPC can convince the PC that doing X is a good idea, then it follows that NPC can set doing X as the goal of the PC. It is inescapable.

That seems to me to be simple, but wrong, logic.

The fact that my friend convinced me to eat half this cheesecake does not mean my goal of losing 30 pounds by summer has changed.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. Major ick. Imagine a male GM using this sort of mechanic on a female PC of a female player.

...while remerging how common sexual assault actually is...

 

[TwoSix]

With the dex check, I can decide my PC think he will 100% succeed, possibly succeed or fail, or 100% has no chance. My agency is preserved with regard to deciding what the PC believes. Now to agency in deciding what the PC does. What he does is try to walk a tightrope. Does he try to walk a tightrope? Yes that is the action he takes. Success or failure isn't an action. That's action resolution, which is not a part of player agency.

My issue is you're putting "am I physically able to walk across the tightrope" and "can I summon up the courage to walk across the tightrope" into two separate categories.

I prefer to see them as the same, as something that can be resolved by a mechanic test if the game/GM deems that to be a worthwhile challenge.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It occurs to me that there is another way to look at this discussion.

When a PC takes an action involving the world or an NPC, whether physical(I attempt to walk the tightrope) or social(I try to convince the king to loan me his best horse), the DM decides if success is automatic or failure is automatic, in which case there is no roll. Only if the outcome is in doubt is there a roll.

When the DM does it to the player, the player get's to make that decision. If the player decides the attempt is automatic(I believe the NPC or I don't believe the NPC), then there is no roll. If the PC decides the outcome is in doubt, then sometimes the player will use the dice under whatever guidelines he comes up with(since D&D has no rules for social vs. PCs), and then let's the die decide. I've seen all three happen in game.

 

[Alzrius]

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

Very well said; this is something which is too often treated as a bug instead of a feature.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That seems to me to be simple, but wrong, logic.

The fact that my friend convinced me to eat half this cheesecake does not mean my goal of losing 30 pounds by summer has changed.

There is no flaw in my logic, the flaw lies with your example. If your friend instead convinced you that losing weight is not worth the effort then your goal would indeed be changed.

 

[payn]

It occurs to me that there is another way to look at this discussion.

When a PC takes an action involving the world or an NPC, whether physical(I attempt to walk the tightrope) or social(I try to convince the king to loan me his best horse), the DM decides if success is automatic or failure is automatic, in which case there is no roll. Only if the outcome is in doubt is there a roll.

When the DM does it to the player, the player get's to make that decision. If the player decides the attempt is automatic(I believe the NPC or I don't believe the NPC), then there is no roll. If the PC decides the outcome is in doubt, then sometimes the player will use the dice under whatever guidelines he comes up with(since D&D has no rules for social vs. PCs), and then let's the die decide. I've seen all three happen in game.

There are in fact rules for social vs PCs in D&D (3E/PF1) and this thread is in TTRPG general. That is not a universal application or understanding as you seem to think. Its simply your preference.

 

[Wolfpack48]

In most places where we have had a deceitful NPC, it has generally been the onus of the GM to present them as honest and reliable to "fool" the players into believing that their intentions are good. There is generally no roll for this, as it would give away the dishonesty. The only cases where we might do a roll is if the intentions of the NPC are visibly dishonest and they are using magic (or even social "magic" ala a cult leader) that is pulling the PCs under their sway. This would be known to all, and is generally short-term.

 

[TwoSix]

There is no flaw in my logic, the flaw lies with your example. If your friend instead convinced you that losing weight is not worth the effort then your goal would indeed be changed.

Sure. And if my character had a goal of revenge, and an NPC convinced me that revenge was not a worthwhile goal, I would consider that perfectly fine gameplay.