NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Frankly, that's BS. It can force the character to engage in sexual act the player did not consent to. It is very troubling that people do not get why this is not cool.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm not replying to continue the discussion, since the bolded makes it clear that you are done. I'm replying because I can't remember seeing a supplement in 3e that has those rules in it and I'm curious to see what they say. Which 3e supplements have those rules?

 

[Aldarc]

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

With respect, I would genuinely hope that you would know TwoSix's character better than that by now than assuming the worst of him or possibly his motives.

 

[billd91]

"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.



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.

I don't know much about the details of Prince Valiant, but if it's got similar DNA to Pendragon, there are definitely times when a character may not entirely live up to a player's expectations - it's a part of the game's medieval romance focus. Sometimes, a check against a trait will force a PC to act according to that trait, despite a player's wishes. That's part of the implicit social contract for playing Pendragon. If a player can't handle that, they're playing the wrong game. Similar might be true of Prince Valiant.

HOWEVER, and that's a big however, the player gets to decide exactly how - as long as it's recognizable. For a courtly knight-oriented game like Pendragon, a failure of chastity (or succumbing to lust) doesn't necessarily mean a roll in the hay. It might mean a kiss of the hand or some other gesture like a verbal affirmation of love and desire. I would hope that the specific results of any incitement of lust in these cases were player led. If so, it's all golden.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I mean, we've gone back and forth on this a million times.

There is a categorical difference between an internal state of mind and the result in the physical world. That doesn't mean you HAVE to treat those two things differently with RPG rules, but if you want to there's a clear line. So while I respect (without sharing) the preference of treating both things the same, I don't buy the argument...if such an argument is being made...that they are one and the same and thus should be treated the same.

I sometimes like to quote "the existences of dawn does not invalidate the difference between day and night" but in this case there is no dawn. At least that I have seen. I have yet to hear an example that blurs the line between internal mental state and result of action declaration.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

And that would be fine, except your post came across as impunging @pemerton's table for not following some kind of obvious protocol, i.e. "better sense". That's my only objection.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Again, that's fine. I'm certainly not saying "that's not an RPG!".

But that style of play is a very specific preference within the genre of RPGs.

I'll make an analogy with really stinky cheese (e.g. Mont D'Or). Is it cheese? Yes. Do you have to enjoy it in order to be able to claim, "I like cheese!" No.

 

[TwoSix]

Frankly, that's BS. It can force the character to engage in sexual act the player did not consent to. It is very troubling that people do not get why this is not cool.

I can understand why it would be problematic for some tables. But I'm perfectly capable of policing my own table, and the fact that it's a problem for some tables doesn't mean the technique and principles behind it aren't sound.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Fair enough. Pretend I asked that instead.

Well in that case it's system-dependent, right? RPGs are written all sorts of ways.

 

[TwoSix]

With respect, I would genuinely hope that you would know TwoSix's character better than that by now than assuming the worst of him or possibly his motives.

I've only been posting here for 20 years, but I suppose I could be a secret rapist.

That's a cheery way to start the New Year!