NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TwoSix]

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?

The throughline, for me, is pretty consistent. If an effect in-game is adjudicated by a resolution method, all participants (player and DM) are bound to follow through with that result to the best of their ability. If my PC gets frightened, I act as if they are frightened. If my PC is befriended, I act as though as the NPC is my PC's friend.

The boundaries are fungible, and highly dependent on the relationship between the PC and NPC and how charged the situation is. A rogue might be able to convince me a fake piece of jewelry is real with a Deception check, he can't convince me that the ring is actually a powerful magic ring that can destroy armies, unless my whole character concept is to be super gullible.

Much like obscenity, I just know implausible narration when I see it.

 

[Xamnam]

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.

I'll be entirely honest: I don't know where my line is, I haven't played in many games that foreground this sort of social pressure. More importantly, I'm not sure that's the sort of idea that lends itself to a hard bright line. It's all based on the circumstances of the fiction.

But, hey, in the context of your example, being convinced by "I can heal your mother if you give me the RRoD" sounds pretty fun and interesting, while my foe telling me "Saving your mother is worth whatever consequence results" doesn't fit quite as neatly. (Of course, we haven't detailed the consequences either. If the material plane is plunged into the Nine Hells...) The former is something the necromancer can theoretically be fully confident in. They can't comprehensively know what things are worth to someone else. Especially if we've already butted heads or demonstrated distance in our values. But, the line is a thing this thread is helping me discover.

And again, it varies by game system, and what the rules and desired play experience are. I could see a form of them being fun in 5E.

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.

Being forced to make choices you (the player) don't want to make, but you (the character) cannot help but make, because of situations you (both of you) have helped create.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Some of the most intense emotional roleplaying I had was in Werewolf when my character messed up a Willpower roll, and involuntarily hurt a lot of people. Roleplaying the response was far more impacting than just deciding to Rage out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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."

As I just said upthread, just because a trope exists in fiction, doesn't mean it works well in an RPG.

Do you hate that Bards are inherently charming?

No. And I agree it seems contradictory that I'm ok with Bards but not with Warlords. I think the difference for me is that the Bard archetype is charming/witty/etc., but the Warlord archetype is "leader", which I think is born out by the examples of the trope you mentioned.

I don't think the core concept of a class should be 'leader'.

But this is really going to derail this thread. This conversation has been re-hashed a thousand times, and I don't think anybody has ever actually changed their mind.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Some of the most intense emotional roleplaying I had was in Werewolf when my character messed up a Willpower roll, and involuntarily hurt a lot of people. Roleplaying the response was far more impacting than just deciding to Rage out.

But that is baked into the game rules, right? Like, in the sense that a Dominate Person spell is baked into the 5e game rules. You knew going into the game that this is something that can happen.

Or were you given general parameters, according to the mechanics, and that's how you chose to enact it?

But either, way it's not there's a vague, poorly defined mechanic, and the GM said, "Wow, you really blew that roll. Let me think....I guess that means your go nuts and start killing people." Right?

 

[TwoSix]

But that is baked into the game rules, right? Like, in the sense that a Dominate Person spell is baked into the 5e game rules. You knew going into the game that this is something that can happen.

It's the rules taking precedence over the player's agency over the PC, which is the point I was arguing.

Deception and Persuasion checks are also a rule. Having the DM set the stakes and determine plausibility for what checks can achieve is also a rule.

As a set of guidelines for deciding what stakes are appropriate, I don't think special exceptions for the PC's decision making should be carved out from the bulk of the rules.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the difference for me is that the Bard archetype is charming/witty/etc., but the Warlord archetype is "leader", which I think is born out by the examples of the trope you mentioned.

I don't think the core concept of a class should be 'leader'.

I think that the Warlord archetype is "cunning," "inspiring," "strategic," and "tactical" more so than "leader." I see them as "playmakers" more so than "leaders." They provide the assists and create the screens so that Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jordan can score the big points in the highlight reel. I think that they are more "point guard" than "quarterback."

 

[zakael19]

I think that the Warlord archetype is "cunning," "inspiring," "strategic," and "tactical" more so than "leader." I see them as "playmakers" more so than "leaders." They provide the assists and create the screens so that Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jordan can score the big points in the highlight reel. I think that they are more "point guard" than "quarterback."

"Inspiring strategist" maybe?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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.

Acting out a script (calling it "randomly generated" is disingenuous at best) or even watching such a script being acted put has been known to generate an emotional experience. Hollywood could provide an example or two.

 

[pemerton]

With respect, forcing a PC to engage in carnal relations due to a die roll is pretty icky stuff. I don't really care if your personal way of dealing with rules calls for it, better sense should rule the day in some situations.

@Umbran, did you read the examples of play?

Sir Morgath did not engage in carnal relations with Lady Lorette. He did become infatuated by her. As per the actual play report,

In the scenario as written by Stafford, the Lady has the Incite Lust special effect which she will use against the strongest and most famous male adventurer, provided he is not married. Anticipating possible complications, Morgath - when asked by the Lady who her rescuer was - announced himself as Sir Morgath, husband of Lady Elizabeth of York. But being an unfair GM while also trying to run with the fiction, it seemed only to make sense that Morgath should fall for the Lady as he carried her in his arms into the castle. The player cursed me appropriately, but also had seen it coming. He took the Lady into the keep to ensure her safety.

Sir Gerran's player likewise had no concerns about the way things played out:

Sir Morgath rode with his huntsman and his wife, while Sir Gerran hunted with his trained falcon that had been a gift given to him by the Duke of York at Sir Morgath's wedding. Lady Lorette - who has Riding and Hunting skill - also joined the hunt, as did Lady Alia. I can't remember all the details of this, but Lady Alia rolled poorly while Sir Gerran rolled OK. And impressed both by his performance in the melee and his hunting prowess, Lady Lorette put the moves on him. I resolved this as his Presence vs her Presence + Glamourie, ruling that if she doubled his total the seduction was total. I can't remember now whether I offered him a bonus die for Alia being also nearby on the hunt; but I don't think Gerran's player took any bonus. Total seduction ensued, and the wedding the next day was a formal rather than exuberant affair.

(Sir Justin's player noted that he had had an inkling as to what the true "hunt" might be, hence his decision to pray instead.)