NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

That's an agree to disagree situation, based on personal preference. If we all agree to that, what more is there to say?

This.

It always turns into an argument about the right way to play, but it doesn't have to.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If what you say was absolute under all circumstances, I'd agree with you. But, of course it isn't.

As I've said elsewhere, for the sake of clarity I prefer that it is absolute under all circumstances, unless there are very specific mechanics to the contrary, because the division between "what I think and attempt to do" and "how my actions affect the world" is such a clear dividing line.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I've said elsewhere, for the sake of clarity I prefer that it is absolute under all circumstances, unless there are very specific mechanics to the contrary, because the division between "what I think and attempt to do" and "how my actions affect the world" is such a clear dividing line.

Oh, I'm right there with you. I'm saying that you still get to make decisions as your PC, even if the mechanics dictate things sometimes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If what you say was absolute under all circumstances, I'd agree with you. But, of course it isn't.

Sure. But basically more situations there are where mechanics override the PC volition this way, less agency there is. And it is a matter of preference at what point it becomes too much.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it is. We have had plenty of talk about agency. Some people are fine with less, and some people desire it on specific areas and not so much in others. To me the agency to decide the desires and goals of my character is central. If some people don't feel the same way, then that's their prerogative.

But ultimately the core play loop of RPG is the GM presenting the situation and the players deciding what their characters want to do, then the GM describing how the situation is altered by what the character does. If we insert mechanics that decide what the characters want instead of the players deciding it, then it sorta makes the players unnecessary.

I just don't really view it as "deciding what the character wants". If a Persuasion check makes my character afraid, for me, that simply limits my logical next steps in the same way that failing a Wisdom save against fear does.

And the context of the narrative matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that a complete mindwipe of the PC based on a failed check is appropriate narration.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, I'm right there with you. I'm saying that you still get to make decisions as your PC, even if the mechanics dictate things sometimes.

Can you give me an example of "mechanics dictate things sometimes"? That sounds like leakage through that clear line.

Here are two examples:

I am ok with:
"You failed your Wisdom save, so you are subject to the Feared condition. That means you may not move closer to the Dragon, and you suffer Disadvantage on the following checks..."

I am not ok with:
"My NPC outrolled you, so your character finds his argument persuasive and you should act accordingly."


In that latter case, here is an example of the player still making decisions:
"Ok, I'm not going to accept that deal."
"The NPC persuaded you, though."
"Oh, yeah, I am TOTALLY persuaded. But I'm also a little scatter-brained so I forgot all about it and now I'm focused on this other thing..."

If that is acceptable within the definition you offered then, yeah, I'm ok with that. But in that case I also don't understand the point of even saying that the PC was persuaded. I'll also point out that if the goal is to prevent players from 'making their characters immune to influence' it does nothing to accomplish that, and encourages players to be deceitful at the table (which in general is one of my concerns about attempts to control metagaming.)

 

[Celebrim]

The player still must choose to use the character skills in a given situation. He still must act on the information given. There’s still agency there.

You don't understand what I'm saying. Yes, the player has agency. But because he has agency, and because he for example lacks the mental or social or moral skills of the character he's trying to emulate, he will fail at being a believable version of that character. He won't have the intelligence or wisdom to act on the information from the character skills. The only way to make up that gap is to start using the character's abilities to take away his agency as a player - "Your character is too wise to do that." or "Your character is too honest to do that" or "Your character wouldn't resort to intimidation in this situation." or "You character realizes that the two clues are incoherent, and so someone must have falsified one, and that implies..." etc. At some point the "system" is playing the character in a simulation of the character and the player is just watching.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just don't really view it as "deciding what the character wants". If a Persuasion check makes my character afraid, for me, that simply limits my logical next steps in the same way that failing a Wisdom save against fear does.

And the context of the narrative matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that a complete mindwipe of the PC based on a failed check is appropriate narration.

See my example above. If there are not very specific mechanics, it encourages the kind of players who don't want to go along with it to find convoluted ways of not complying. So it doesn't really solve the problem of forcing people to roleplay a certain way.

So, again, just play with people who share your preferences. (Or try not to be bothered by different preferences.)

 

[payn]

Can you give me an example of "mechanics dictate things sometimes"? That sounds like leakage through that clear line.

Here are two examples:

I am ok with:
"You failed your Wisdom save, so you are subject to the Feared condition. That means you may not move closer to the Dragon, and you suffer Disadvantage on the following checks..."

I am not ok with:
"My NPC outrolled you, so your character finds his argument persuasive and you should act accordingly."

Interesting, I see the former as just mechanical enforcement of "acting accordingly". The PC still has agency to act against the persuasion, but its going to be difficult to succeed going further as a result of it. In the past, I used social checks as a way to hide or distort information from one character to another, but I kinda like the slight mechanical penalty of acting against the result, but not a forbidding of doing so.

In that latter case, here is an example of the player still making decisions:
"Ok, I'm not going to accept that deal."
"The NPC persuaded you, though."
"Oh, yeah, I am TOTALLY persuaded. But I'm also a little scatter-brained so I forgot all about it and now I'm focused on this other thing..."

This is one area I never approach. I never use a social skill to force anything. Whether that is an NPC or a PC. I know some folks believe that a PC can persuade check an NPC into some action, but that doesn't also work the other way around on PCs. For me its a different approach altogether.

I know some folks refer to it as social combat, i dont necessarily like the term, I might prefer something like social encounter instead. Though, lets use an example of agreeing to a deal. An NPC might be standoffish and ready to walk. The persuade check isnt to change his mind and force him to agree to the deal. The persuade check is to bring them back to the table and open them up to the possibility. The roll matters becasue failure means no deal in the short term. The negotiation continues with a successful result. Then, new parameters are set and you keep working towards the goal; like rounds of a combat.

If that is acceptable within the definition you offered then, yeah, I'm ok with that. But in that case I also don't understand the point of even saying that the PC was persuaded. I'll also point out that if the goal is to prevent players from 'making their characters immune to influence' it does nothing to accomplish that, and encourages players to be deceitful at the table (which in general is one of my concerns about attempts to control metagaming.)

For me the metagaming aspect isnt something I try to control, I just dont accept ignoring it completely. For example, our lose weight and eat cheesecake example. A player might choose the weight loss goal for their PC. Then, despite hunger pains, temptation, peer pressure, etc.. they simply have the character subsist on water and saltine crackers for 90 days to reach the goal ignoring everything in the millileu. Its wooden, its stale, its an uninteresting approach to reach a goal for the goal sake itself. The journey is always more interesting than the destination. YMMV

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just don't really view it as "deciding what the character wants". If a Persuasion check makes my character afraid, for me, that simply limits my logical next steps in the same way that failing a Wisdom save against fear does.

And the context of the narrative matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that a complete mindwipe of the PC based on a failed check is appropriate narration.

But certainly NPCs being able to use persuasion on PCs must mean that the NPC can convince the PC that doing X is a good idea? Like how could it not? A charismatic necromancer says: "Bring me the red ruby of doom, I can use it to save your sick mother!" and rolls super high on persuasion. Doesn't it now become PCs "want" to bring the red ruby of doom to the necromancer? Then this want potentially dictates very long series of actions, as the PC takes steps to pursue the ruby.