NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

A lot to unpack here. Are the necromancer, the red ruby, and the sick mother already in play elements?

Sure.

What sort of relationship does my character have with all three?

That is determined by what sort of success the mother and the necromancer had with their previous social rolls.

If saving my sick mother through supernatural means was part of my play agenda, then sure, I could accept a powerful necromancer convincing my PC that the red ruby could cure her. I would certainly imagine that it's not a simple fetch quest, and the relative trust my character puts in the necromancer would be something tested in play to come. If my character goal is "help save my sick mother", then seeing what lengths my character will go to do that is exactly what I want to see challenges on in game.

But perhaps it is your character's goal because some NPC (perhaps the mother or your sister) rolled well in persuasion previously and convinced the PC that this is what they need to do.

I think all that forceful social mechanics demand is that the PC believes the necromancer and/or the Red Ruby of Doom is indeed capable of doing that. So sure, if their focus is saving their mother above all else, this might sway them to that course of action. They might also seek out the RRoD to see if they can perhaps learn this magic themselves, or find another suitably powerful occultist.

Can they? Perhaps the necromancer said "Only though me can your mother be saved," rolled well, and now the character believes that.

Or they might decide that no matter how much they want to heal their mother, it is not worth the potential cost of helping the necromancer.

But they cannot decide that if the necromancer succeeds at persuading them that it is worth it!

Or that their mother would not want them to make that trade, and couldn't stomach their disapproval.

Perhaps. Which is another case of the GM deciding via a NPC what the PC will do. Perhaps in such case the mother and necromancer roll opposed persuasion checks, and that decides who the character believes.


Can't you see how applying these sort of rules will destroy player agency?

 

[Xamnam]

What purpose does it serve, unless the GM really can't decide how persuasive (or how creepy) the setting is.

Because I, as the player there, might struggle to step outside of me and my friend sitting around a table, playing a game, drinking, snacking, and listening to them put on a character voice, and match that experience to how persuasive my character, with a different personality, in a forgotten temple, low on health, staring down a terrible and real threat might find their experience to be. The dice can be an effective bridge across that disparity, and provide a more specific stimulus to drive what that character's reaction is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

There's a certain all-or-nothing aspect to your statement here. The Hero System has strong reasons to take Psychological Limitations, which, depending on the intensity taken, can have significant impact on "what the characters want" in a given situation, and in some cases mandate it (if you have the strongest version of acrophobia, what your character is going to overwhelmingly when confronted with a cliff edge is to get away from it, with the roll required meaning most of the time you're obligated to do just that. But that doesn't effect all their decision making, just in that select area. Similarly, if someone can make a Persuade check and convince your character that a course of action is a bad idea, that doesn't mean someone is constantly doing that or micromanaging everything.

These are both strong (in the case of the phobia, very strong) influencers on character action, but I think characterizing them as "making the players unnecessary" is kind of hyperbolic. At best you can say in those selective situations they do so, but that's not the same as the implications of it as a broad statement.

(I also recognize the Phobia example is somewhat different than the Persuade one, since you got to choose to have the former, but there are still going to be potential cases where, when you choose one of the intensity I mentioned, the GM can respond to an action declaration by asking for a die roll you'll probably fail, and therefor not be allowed to choose that action).

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a certain all-or-nothing aspect to your statement here. The Hero System has strong reasons to take Psychological Limitations, which, depending on the intensity taken, can have significant impact on "what the characters want" in a given situation, and in some cases mandate it (if you have the strongest version of acrophobia, what your character is going to overwhelmingly when confronted with a cliff edge is to get away from it, with the roll required meaning most of the time you're obligated to do just that. But that doesn't effect all their decision making, just in that select area. Similarly, if someone can make a Persuade check and convince your character that a course of action is a bad idea, that doesn't mean someone is constantly doing that or micromanaging everything.

These are both strong (in the case of the phobia, very strong) influencers on character action, but I think characterizing them as "making the players unnecessary" is kind of hyperbolic. At best you can say in those selective situations they do so, but that's not the same as the implications of it as a broad statement.

(I also recognize the Phobia example is somewhat different than the Persuade one, since you got to choose to have the former, but there are still going to be potential cases where, when you choose one of the intensity I mentioned, the GM can respond to an action declaration by asking for a die roll you'll probably fail, and therefor not be allowed to choose that action).

An excellent point. For example, there are a lot of games out there with disadvantage mechanics that impose feelings and/or actions on the PC, from phobias to rage issues to addiction and a hundred more. These are imposed by and large by non-supernatural means. Where do we all stand on those mechanics?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

An excellent point. For example, there are a lot of games out there with disadvantage mechanics that impose feelings and/or actions on the PC, from phobias to rage issues to addiction and a hundred more. These are imposed by and large by non-supernatural means. Where do we all stand on those mechanics?

Not a fan, but less of an issue for the reasons Thomas mentioned. But I would prefer if they worked so that you had some sort of disadvantage or penalty in situations related to the phobia, rather than the mechanic dictating what you can even attempt.

 

[Thomas Shey]

An excellent point. For example, there are a lot of games out there with disadvantage mechanics that impose feelings and/or actions on the PC, from phobias to rage issues to addiction and a hundred more. These are imposed by and large by non-supernatural means. Where do we all stand on those mechanics?

I suspect CL (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting him) would rather not have those either. He's expressed a feeling that adds up to having no social mechanics at all is better than having ones that grab control of a PC, so that would be consistent. I've said my piece to him regarding that subject, so I feel no need to belabor it.

The overstatement or hyperbole of the reach of such things is, however, something that doesn't do this or any other discussion any favors (as I've noted I feel in the past) and I felt no need to let it pass.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not a fan, but less of an issue for the reasons Thomas mentioned. But I would prefer if they worked so that you had some sort of disadvantage or penalty in situations related to the phobia, rather than the mechanic dictating what you can even attempt.

Well, as I've mentioned I'm not hostile to that approach, but in the extreme case I was mentioning, I'd expect those to be severe enough it adds up to much the same thing (as someone with severe acrophobia myself, I can state firmly it would, if not completely paralyze me, impair me enough to make most anything I attempted to do next to useless). But I'll agree it is a more sophisticated approach.

 

[Xamnam]

Can they? Perhaps the necromancer said "Only though me can your mother be saved," rolled well, and now the character believes that.

Cool, that puts them into an intense cauldron of doubt and fear! What a fun position to have to make a decision in! That still leaves all the questions of whether or not it is worth it up to the player. Which, you admittedly bring up:

But they cannot decide that if the necromancer succeeds at persuading them that it is worth it!

Which is a different situation that was initially described, but fair. That's a trickier one, that I'm mulling a bit, but still, if I remain with my previous articulation: Sure, I can believe the necromancer thinks that. It's convincing! But, that's also not a thing they can know. If I were player, and I tried to use that tactic, I wouldn't be upset if it failed to change their mind. My personal position is that I'm not opposed to social mechanics having powerful effects in the right game, but I'm also not proposing that you can simply convince anyone of anything by virtue of a high roll. The use case here is a spice best used thoughtfully.

Perhaps. Which is another case of the GM deciding via a NPC what the PC will do. Perhaps in such case the mother and necromancer roll opposed persuasion checks, and that decides who the character believes.

Sure, say she's present as well. They're not trying to convince each other, they're trying to convince me. Maybe I choose to intentionally fail the attempt from my mother, giving her almost certainly a higher margin of success than the necromancer. If the love of my mother is a core facet of this character, which it sure seems to be in the example, that should have a major effect on the DCs, or rolling with dis/advantage. Similarly to above, I don't believe a simple opposed roll would be an effective or interesting model for what is happening in that scene. (Unless that sort of scenario is the point of the game system, in which case, I've signed on for it intentionally!)

Can't you see how applying these sort of rules will destroy player agency?

With all due respect, absolutely not, full stop. I fully disagree with whatever definition you are using for player agency if you find that this scenario inherently destroys it. I do not see the player forced down specific, narrow paths in the way that you appear to.

Even if I am generous to your position, allowing for the sake of argument that it does undercut it, or even destroy it, that trade off might be worth the emotional experience that is created as a result.

 

[TwoSix]

Can't you see how applying these sort of rules will destroy player agency?

Using rules terribly isn't super convincing in terms of making the rules look like they don't work.

As a counter example, giving the DM latitude to world build his campaign, and having the GM start the PCs in an active volcano, doesn't do much to convince me that DM world building is inherently deadly.

If the GM constantly frames in high Charisma characters specifically to restrict your character's agency whenever they want, than they're playing in bad faith and you should talk to them and/or leave the game. Just like you would do if the GM sent high-level enchanters after you all the time to charm and suggest and geas the PCs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because I, as the player there, might struggle to step outside of me and my friend sitting around a table, playing a game, drinking, snacking, and listening to them put on a character voice, and match that experience to how persuasive my character, with a different personality, in a forgotten temple, low on health, staring down a terrible and real threat might find their experience to be. The dice can be an effective bridge across that disparity, and provide a more specific stimulus to drive what that character's reaction is.

So in the 5e playloop, I would say this is an example of the symmetry I proposed when NPCs "use" social skills:

• The DM narrates that the NPC is trying to persuade the PC of something.
• The player thinks, "Gosh, I'm really not sure what I would do. I could see being persuaded of that, but it wouldn't necessarily be easy."
• Out loud, the player says, "Could I get a Persuasion roll from the Necromancer? My DC is 18, and if he succeeds I'm going to do what he says. But if he fails I'm going to be angry that he tried to blackmail me with my poor mum, and I'm going to take a seriously dislike to him."

So the player has put stakes on the table, and has agreed to abide by the results.

It's when the DM decides for the player that the outcome is uncertain, and decides for the player what the DC should be, that I have a problem.

That said, the other alternative is that the DM may not be able to decide how to narrate the Necromancer's action, so rolls a die to help them along. But....that's not really the game rules at this point, that's just the DM inventing a use for the dice to solve a creative block. (Again, in 5e. This doesn't apply in all other systems.)