NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You claimed that a character can't set goals if the mechanics allow those goals to be changed. Setting goals and changing goals, for whatever reason, are two separate things.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I see nothing in @pemerton's post to indicate the example as being some sort of broad guideline. It's simply an example.

Not wanting the result of any mechanic to end up in a sexual situation seems like an X-card option to me, especially in a game like Prince Valiant where wrestling with temptations like lust is part of the gameplay. In your bog-standard dungeon crawl, sure, than the DM should probably double-check before introducing sexual content.

I would also point out that a character failing a roll to resist temptation is very different from actual sexual assault. There's no charm or mind magic at play here, the results of the mechanics simply meant the PC made a poor (from their perspective), but presumably enthusiatically consenting, decision.

 

[Maxperson]

And just an aside. I've gotten tired of current news and the music stations are playing the same old stuff over and over, so I've started listening to D&D play podcasts.

I've finished one and started my second and both of them allow NPCs to use social skills on the PCs. I'm not sure if they don't know the rules, or if they do that because it's certainly more entertaining to listen to the absurd things that result. They do seem to be having a lot of fun, though.

If your table is having fun with social skills being used against their PCs, then you are playing the game right for your table. I wouldn't play there, but then I don't have to. I can find find a table where such skills aren't being used against my PC.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

The mechanics are dictating the happenstance of the PCs. None of that impacts the player, other than that they must make new decisions based on the current fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You said that 3e had rules for NPC social action vs. PCs. It doesn't.

How you choose to alter the rules for your game is your business, but a claim like, "There are in fact rules for social vs PCs in D&D (3E/PF1)," is easily refuted. I can't speak to Pathfinder since I didn't play it, but I suspect that it didn't change that part.

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.

I'm arguing preference. And I'm also arguing rules. In 3e and 5e the rules don't allow social skills to be used to force PCs to believe something or act in a certain way.

 

[Bae'zel]

We've had many fun in-game moments where the players all know for sure that the NPC is lying, but all of the PCs believe them. It's been fun to watch how things roll out, like a movie or improv session.

So to answer the OP's question, yeah I allow NPCs to trick PCs. Same with Perception vs. Stealth or Perception vs. Traps. Shrug.

There are far worse ways to remove player agency outside of the actual game rules.

 

[payn]

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You said that 3e had rules for NPC social action vs. PCs. It doesn't.
How you choose to alter the rules for your game is your business, but a claim like, "There are in fact rules for social vs PCs in D&D (3E/PF1)," is easily refuted. I can't speak to Pathfinder since I didn't play it, but I suspect that it didn't change that part.

I'm arguing preference. And I'm also arguing rules. In 3e and 5e the rules don't allow social skills to be used to force PCs to believe something or act in a certain way.

There are numerous supplements in both 3E and PF1 for social skills use by NPCs. That doesnt make them bad or you correct. Also, again, this is a TTRPG general thread. Have a good day.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

It would not be great storytelling if it was NPC saying "revenge is dumb" and rolling 30 on their persuasion check. Great storytelling would require you actually tell the story, to have the NPC make an argument that connects with the experiences and beliefs of the PC. And to me what the PC decides to do on such an important occasion is absolutely something the player gets to decide. Such big thematic decisions about the core of the character, their beliefs and drives are to me among the best things in RPGs and outsourcing such to the dice seems like utter madness to me. I would not play in a game that did that.

You don't roll the dice for this sort of stuff. It is the player's choice to make.

 

[Umbran]

I see nothing in @pemerton's post to indicate the example as being some sort of broad guideline. It's simply an example.

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

There is no qualification on that. It is flat, and general, no stipulations or carve-outs or recommendations of when you should or should not apply that principle. The principle was applied to sexual content in the example.

That you continue to push back on me for simply noting that really, for sexual content, one ought to be careful is... not encouraging.

Not wanting the result of any mechanic to end up in a sexual situation seems like an X-card option to me

Yes, an X-card would function here, as would several other approaches to managing the situation. It isn't intractable.

My point is merely that the example didn't note that it might need to be managed. If Pemerton wasn't going to note it, someone should. Even if it had been noted earlier, this is a 60+ page long thread spanning multiple holiday weeks, and you cannot rely on everyone reading and remembering that it had been mentioned.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You claimed that a character can't set goals if the mechanics allow those goals to be changed. Setting goals and changing goals, for whatever reason, are two separate things.

Sophistry. Doesn't change the point. They player is not in control of the goals of their character.