NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

I don't see falling of a log and being tricked by a troll as different, as far as agency is concerned. They are both events that occur, in the fiction, to the PC.

You are right, by that definition.

Other things that are no different from an agency perspective: coveting a magic item, being moved by a sunset, wanting to learn a new spell, deciding to enter the scary dungeon, or even leaving the tavern in the first place.

I want to know where the line is: when do I have agency, and when does the game tell me how my character should be played?

When I suggested something similar upthread, your response was (I paraphrase) that it depends on the amount of narrative surprise resulting from the decision point. But that's entirely subjective.

My opinion...and I've yet to hear an convincing argument to the contrary...is that the only distinct, objective line of division is that your internal thoughts and feelings, and thus the actions you attempt to take, including the things you say, are objectively different from the results that your actions have in the game world. Your character is free to think that you are a freakin' ninja, and your response to the troll pushing you may be to laugh at them and (try to) do a triple backflip onto their head, but you don't have control over the outcome of that attempt.

And my preference is that this clear line be the line, so that in the absence of specific rules that cross that line there's never any question about who calls the shots, player or GM.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No?

Are you stating that the player should be the arbiter of determining whether or not an NPC can impact them with any skill check?

Yup, absolutely. If it's not a defined mechanic (and "Persuasion" in 5e is not so defined; "Dominate Person" is) then the player gets to decide that.

Doesn't the DM get to decide the same thing for their own characters? Do you object to that, too?

I'm pretty lax, but most games I know put the arbitration of stakes and their plausibility in the hands of the GM, no matter who or what is being impacted.

I was specifically talking about 5e, but the other games I play work the same way.

I freely admit there are yet other games that work differently, such as Torchbearer. And I'm not saying this is "wrong" or "bad game design", just that I choose not to play those games.

 

[TwoSix]

My opinion...and I've yet to hear an convincing argument to the contrary...is that the only distinct, objective line of division is that your internal thoughts and feelings, and thus the actions you attempt to take, including the things you say, are objectively different from the results that your actions have in the game world. Your character is free to think that you are a freakin' ninja, and your response to the troll pushing you may be to laugh at them and do a triple backflip onto their head, but you don't have control over the outcome of that attempt.

Why is there any necessity for an objective line? Why can't it simply be "This feels OK, but this feels too controlling?"

 

[payn]

Right, so is Dominate Person.



Are we talking about 5e? Yes, Deception and Persuasion checks are mechanics with rules. But the applicable rules talk about how DMs can use those when players declare actions. Any "use" of those skills by PCs needs to be extrapolated.

Unless you've noticed something that I haven't.

(If we're not talking about 5e....and this thread is not in a D&D forum...then, yes, of course the rules are whatever the game in questions says they are.)



Again, if we are talking about 5e I don't think there's a special exception. The play loop defined for PCs is:

1. The player declares an action as a goal and approach. ("I want to persuade the guard to let us through by showing sympathy for the crappy assignments he always gets.")
2. The DM decides if that action automatically succeeds or fails, or if there is uncertainty. ("Hmm...how likely do I think this is to work?")
3. If there is uncertainty, and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, the DM may set a DC and ask for an attribute roll, possibly modified by a skill proficiency. ("Ok, that is going to take a DC 13 Charisma (Persuasion) check, but if you fail the guard is going to get suspicious.")
4. The player then makes the roll (or, in my game, may decide that the risk:reward profile is not attractive, and change their mind.)

Although 5e does not describe what to do if an NPC tries to persuade a PC, for those who think the rules should apply equally, I suggest we follow that exact same play loop, but in reverse. Which means the player decides whether success or failure is automatic. And if the player isn't sure, they are free to set some stakes and ask for a roll.

I can allow that one might not like doing it this way, and might choose to keep all that decision making with the DM, but I don't see how one could possibly claim that the 5e rules instruct us to do that.

Nor do I understand any argument for such a think might be necessary. What's the objection to giving the player the same control over their character that the DM has over theirs?

When I run RPGs generally, I kind of do run it back in reverse. Though, its usually a conversation and/or negotiation with a player on how it should sort out. The stakes are laid out, a check is called for, and then its resolved. It's a bit of an alien approach at first, but my players learn pretty quick and seem to enjoy it.

One of the reasons I like 5E BA and flat progression games like Traveller, is the difficulty system is fairly static. So, no pulling impossible DCs out to humor a player. Also, a player has a good understanding of the risks they are negotiating for.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why is there any necessity for an objective line? Why can't it simply be "This feels OK, but this feels too controlling?"

Huh? It can be.

I'm describing how I like my RPGs, and the official guidance for how 5e is played, not how all RPGs have to be.

My preference is that the DM can't arbitrarily cross the line and tell me what my character thinks or how I react. It yanks me right out of the feeling of being my character.

 

[Aldarc]

I want to know where the line is: when do I have agency, and when does the game tell me how my character should be played?

A wise but frustrated GM once said, "For Christ's sake! Read the rules for once and then you'd know!"

 

[TwoSix]

Doesn't the DM get to decide the same thing for their own characters? Do you object to that, too?

The GM isn't deciding for their characters, because they don't have characters. They're the arbiters of the resolution method, and the framers of the fictional environment.

The GM can decide that a particular setting of stakes or framing is implausible, but they can't just arbitrarily choose that a skill doesn't affect their NPC. Same result, but a very different (and important) distinction in method.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A wise but frustrated GM once said, "For Christ's sake! Read the rules for once and then you'd know!"

Exactly!

5e does not turn Persuasion and Deception into a magic spell that can be used on other characters, regardless of NPC or PC status.

I wish more people would read the rules, rather than assume it works the way it does (or maybe they imagined it does?) in some previous edition, or some other game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The GM isn't deciding for their characters, because they don't have characters. They're the arbiters of the resolution method, and the framers of the fictional environment.

The GM can decide that a particular setting of stakes or framing is implausible, but they can't just arbitrarily choose that a skill doesn't affect their NPC. Same result, but a very different (and important) distinction in method.

They absolutely, 100% can.

The DM can rule at any time that a declared action automatically fails. It is right there in the rules.

Also, skills do not affect characters. Skills are not abilities. They are possible modifiers to attribute checks.

 

[TwoSix]

Exactly!

5e does not turn Persuasion and Deception into a magic spell that can be used on other characters, regardless of NPC or PC status.

I wish more people would read the rules, rather than assume it works the way it does (or maybe they imagined it does?) in some previous edition, or some other game.

If Persuasion and Deception can't be used on other characters, then what exactly are they for?

I mean, there's some very pissed off dead NPCs in BG3 if using Persuasion on them is cheating.