NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TwoSix]

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.

I recall a thread a few years back about the warlord class, and a specific dislike of the class because some of the warlord abilities would give feelings to other PCs, which was specifically counter to the belief that the player should have unrestricted agency over the character's mindset.

I didn't agree with that then either (and I'm not sure if this thread and that one have participant overlap), but it does seem to be a long-gestating belief among some people.

 

[payn]

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I recall a thread a few years back about the warlord class, and a specific dislike of the class because some of the warlord abilities would give feelings to other PCs, which was specifically counter to the belief that the player should have unrestricted agency over the character's mindset.

I didn't agree with that then either (and I'm not sure if this thread and that one have participant overlap), but it does seem to be a long-gestating belief among some people.

Oh, its an ancient argument. I was seeing it probably 30 years ago in various places and contexts.

 

[zakael19]

I recall a thread a few years back about the warlord class, and a specific dislike of the class because some of the warlord abilities would give feelings to other PCs, which was specifically counter to the belief that the player should have unrestricted agency over the character's mindset.

I didn't agree with that then either (and I'm not sure if this thread and that one have participant overlap), but it does seem to be a long-gestating belief among some people.

Have these people never read a fantasy novel? Gone to a concert? Seen a rousing speech incite people to action/violence/hatred/joy? Baffling.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Why it is in bad faith? Certainly it is plausible, that high level leaders and would have high social skills, and certainly they would use those to pursue their own agenda? That's what PCs would do in similar situation, why don't you want symmetry now?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I recall a thread a few years back about the warlord class, and a specific dislike of the class because some of the warlord abilities would give feelings to other PCs, which was specifically counter to the belief that the player should have unrestricted agency over the character's mindset.

I didn't agree with that then either (and I'm not sure if this thread and that one have participant overlap), but it does seem to be a long-gestating belief among some people.

I understand that criticism, but we are talking about an ally inspiring you etc. The problem is easily averted by making accepting the warlord buffs and such voluntary.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Have these people never read a fantasy novel? Gone to a concert? Seen a rousing speech incite people to action/violence/hatred/joy? Baffling.

I'm one of those people who doesn't like the warlord for those reasons.

It's not that the archetype doesn't exist in fiction/fantasy/reality. It's that I detest the idea that somehow my character finds your character to be an inspiring leader by dint of your class choice. Or that my 12 level fighter can be effectively coached on fighting by your first level Warlord.

You get to play Aragorn, and I have to play Sam?

It makes me want to refuse to allow the abilities to work. "Naw, no thanks, I'm not going to take an extra action because I think your character is really a twat." But I don't want to be That Player, either.

I'm really not opposed to the mechanics themselves, as much as the flavor typically wrapped around them. I can imagine those mechanics being re-written differently, but 99% of the time they are not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I understand that criticism, but we are talking about an ally inspiring you etc. The problem is easily averted by making accepting the warlord buffs and such voluntary.

Yeah, but as I just said, that's problematic too.

 

[zakael19]

I'm one of those people who doesn't like the warlord for those reasons.

It's not that the archetype doesn't exist in fiction/fantasy/reality. It's that I detest the idea that somehow my character finds your character to be an inspiring leader by dint of your class choice. Or that my 12 level fighter can be effectively coached on fighting by your first level Warlord.

You get to play Aragorn, and I have to play Sam?

It makes me want to refuse to allow the abilities to work. "Naw, no thanks, I'm not going to take an extra action because I think your character is really a twat." But I don't want to be That Player, either.

I'm really not opposed to the mechanics themselves, as much as the flavor typically wrapped around them. I can imagine those mechanics being re-written differently, but 99% of the time they are not.

Uh, have you never seen the trope in fiction that people find somebody inspiring despite themselves? Yeah, it's the class choice of "I am an inspiring battlefield leader" the same way Wizard is "I am a font of arcane magic" and a Cleric is "I am channel of a God's might."

Do you hate that Bards are inherently charming?

 

[TwoSix]

Why it is in bad faith? Certainly it is plausible, that high level leaders and would have high social skills, and certainly they would use those to pursue their own agenda? That's what PCs would do in similar situation, why don't you want symmetry now?

Because it's poor framing and stake-setting.

I could see a convincing cult leader type managing to convince someone that the red ruby is actually vitally important in a minute or two. I can't see them convincing someone to sell out their entire family in the same time frame with just a social contest roll. That seems beyond the bounds of genre expectation, to me.

If you get into the realm of a powerfully supernatural socializer, someone closer to David Tennant's character in Jessica Jones, then maybe such a framing would become plausible.

And yes, much like a lot of the spell text around mind-affecting effects in D&D, a certain amount of negotiation and common sense is necessary. It's important that the stakes of a passed and failed check are established before the roll, and the player and DM are on the same wavelength.