NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Wolfpack48]

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.

For this, I would play without any social rolls. The GM/NPC argument would need to tie to the PCs background and make some kind of emotional appeal that rings true, but the player would need to make the call as to how persuasive it is on their character based on what their character "would do." Only if the player needs and wants help deciding what the PC would do, might a die roll help.

 

[Xamnam]

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.)

You know, that's a really fair first statement. I really wouldn't have a problem with the DM saying "Hey, do you think this guy even has a chance of swaying you from your course of action if he pulls on your heartstrings?" and abiding by the player's response, if we're staying fully in 5E. Because ultimately, if I'm at that table, the player not feeling ignored is way more important than the GM's plan.

My counterpoint would be, though, if we were running a game that used stronger social mechanics, or agreed to play a form of 5E where they were that strong, that would have been a session zero agreement, potentially giving the GM full permission to run that first scenario. And even then, I'd personally probably approach it with a more BitD GM style phrase: "Okay, this sounds like a social contest, right? [You on the same page? Stop me if you're not.]"


As far as the second, I personally am fine with dice just being used for uncertain outcomes. A person saying, "I have no idea how well this will go, let's disclaim it to chance", without inherent stakes or consequences attached. (And also under that umbrella, "This necromancer is more charismatic than I am, but I don't know that he can convince you, let's find out.") I know that you don't share that position, so it's fair that you would call that outside of game rules.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

 

[payn]

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.

That is interesting since you dont feel this way when it comes to magic and mundane marital vs. caster disparity.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Have to play Sam? You get to play the true hero of the story!

(I actually get your objection, albeit I haven't found it to be a problem in practice.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But we are not talking about that. I have not suggested the NPC convincing the PC to do anything absurd. They are situations where the player pretty plausibly could decide either way were it their call. But they don't get to make that decisions if mechanics dictate it to them.

I don't think you're being very consistent here, or at least not have expressed your position coherently. What are you boundaries on how the NPCs are allowed to influence the PCs via social mechanics?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Then maybe you shouldn't play Dragonbane because it has Heroic Abilities like "Battle Cry" and "Musician" where you can non-magically inspire allies regardless of how they feel about the character.

 

[zakael19]

(or 5e, and Bardic Inspiration...)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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:


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.

So where do you draw the line? I don't think convincing a person that saving their mother is worth some pretty significant cost is absurd. It is something people could rather plausibly be convinced of. The plausibility is not the issue, it is that this is the sort of choice the player should be allowed to make on their own.

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.

What emotional experience? Acting a randomly generated script? To me the emotional experience is achieved by actually getting to make the decisions my character has to make.

 

[Aldarc]

(or 5e, and Bardic Inspiration...)

And a level 3 Battlemaster can "coach" a level 20 Champion because of the former's choice of subclass.