NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[CreamCloud0]

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.

the final goal didn't change, but they have been convinced in the short term that one piece of cheesecake 'couldn't hurt that much' or is 'worth the extra exercise'

 

[Maxperson]

Writers of stories are almost writing always characters that do things they would never do themselves. They write characters who are deceived in ways they themselves would never be deceived. Perhaps that kind of separation (within the bounds of decency) is a productive way of thinking about it.

That's a great way of thinking about it. When the player uses social skills to deprive me of my agency over the PC, he is in effect ceasing the game and just writing a story about my PC. I don't play the game to listen to the DM write a story.

 

[payn]

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.

Typically, yes that is how I run it. Occasionally, I use an NPC that specializes in social skills, and when I do its typically more involved than a simple single deception. Its usually working with a framework around a series of deceptions. Its a web of obfuscation that the PCs have to navigate.

 

[Umbran]

"Better sense" is doing some unnecessary work there.

Unnecessary? I think that work is essential when speaking about sexual content in games.

I would certainly presume @pemerton knows his table well enough to know if such a narration would be problematic.

I would not make any such presumption, for two reasons.

1) He didn't state this as a concept "for his table". He made a general statement about player consent to sexual content - that they don't necessarily get to have it! If he isn't going to be wise enough to remember that, on sexual content, he really ought to put some qualifiers around it, someone else really ought to. Presumptions on this topic do not cut the mustard.

2) The statistics are such that if you have even a handful of people at a table, one or more of them has suffered sexual assault of some kind, and not told you about it.

 

[Wolfpack48]

That's a great way of thinking about it. When the player uses social skills to deprive me of my agency over the PC, he is in effect ceasing the game and just writing a story about my PC. I don't play the game to listen to the DM write a story.

I think you misunderstood. The players are the "writers" of their own PCs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Ok. I wouldn't. Like not at all.

But this certainly is a matter we can agree to disagree on, as long as we can agree on what is actually happening: the mechanics are dictating the player goals. It is a matter of taste whether one finds this acceptable.

 

[payn]

That's a great way of thinking about it. When the player uses social skills to deprive me of my agency over the PC, he is in effect ceasing the game and just writing a story about my PC. I don't play the game to listen to the DM write a story.

I dont believe that was the intention of the comment.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes. I am coming at this from a current edition standpoint. Also, you are wrong about 3e. This is from the 3.5e DMG.

"The important point to remember regarding the actions of player characters during an adventure is that each player controls his or her own character. Don’t force a character to take a specific action (unless the character is under a magical compulsion; see below). Don’t tell a player what his or her character’s emotions are. Even if an NPC with a high Charisma score attempts to persuade a character, no mere die roll should force a character into doing something."

If Pathfinder changed that, well, bad rules do exist in RPGs.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

IMO that would be a great example of character transformation/evolution, which is great storytelling, but pretty rare to see at the gaming table IME

 

[payn]

Yes. I am coming at this from a current edition standpoint. Also, you are wrong about 3e. This is from the 3.5e DMG.

"The important point to remember regarding the actions of player characters during an adventure is that each player controls his or her own character. Don’t force a character to take a specific action (unless the character is under a magical compulsion; see below). Don’t tell a player what his or her character’s emotions are. Even if an NPC with a high Charisma score attempts to persuade a character, no mere die roll should force a character into doing something."

Ive contended for quite awhile now that social rules should influence the character's decision making, but nor force any particular action itself.

If Pathfinder changed that, well, bad rules do exist in RPGs.

Again, that is your preference and one you ought to keep in threads about the current edition of D&D if thats all you are concerned with.