NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

Im starting to think he's the devil of arguing about details, trying to tempt us into the sin of endlessly parsing minutia on Internet forums.

Also that's pretty much crossing the line into personal attacks. Please stop.

 

[Theory of Games]

Ultimately, we can play these games however we like. If you don't want to make rolls or you want to make more rolls, the entire play experience is mutable.

It's up to you (or your group).

 

[Wolfpack48]

Has anyone ever played a game where a PC has been co-opted mentally and the GM takes the player aside and makes an agreement about the behavior? I seem to remember some games like this.

Sorta like The Thing when they have been absorbed by the creature and are now infiltrating the rest of the researchers?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm going to trust my hundreds of hours of play experience over your "logical" deduction, performed a priori in ignorance of the rules of the games in question or any experience playing them.

"Just trust me, bro" isn't as good argument than you think it is. You have posted several examples of your games where mechanics that would affect the PCs goals were used. If you have an issue with my logic, then actually demonstrate where I have erred.

I'll quote myself from earlier:

Your example seems to be that the social rolls only rod the players of short term agency (whether we surrender now or not) not long term one? The former is also super bad. Whether to surrender or fight is an important choice with meaningful consequences, and one the players, not the dice, should decide. If a game robs me agency on such crucial moments, I don't want to play it.

Furthermore, I have hard time believing you regarding long term goals too. If a NPC lady can via mechanics cause a PC knight fall in love with them, then how does this not directly affect the goals the player is going to set? Certainly (especially in Arthurian milieu) this would rather directly lead to the knight trying to win the lady's favour.

So yeah, to me using mechanics like this severely undermines all your talk about player driven games and player agency. These are agency destroying mechanics of the worst kind.

 

[Maxperson]

Your definition of agency is at best merely a reflection of your own preferences, and at worst arbitrary stipulation.

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.

They are both events that occur in the fiction, but only the trick deprives the player of choice. Only it takes away agency. The player chose for the PC to take the risk on the log. The player did not choose for his PC to be forced to believe the troll.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Do you hate that Bards are inherently charming?

What a warlord does is barely even different to bardic inspiration yet we don’t see people complaining all over about how ‘their character is FORCED into the narrative of being inspired by the bard’s words and music’

 

[Bill Zebub]

What a warlord does is barely even different to bardic inspiration yet we don’t see people complaining all over about how ‘their character is FORCED into the narrative of being inspired by the bard’s words and music’

The other thing we don't (often) see is warlord fans saying, "It's interesting that there's this difference; if we assume their intent is genuine, maybe there's something useful to learn by pulling on this thread."

Instead it's, "Inconsistency! Contradiction! We always suspected your views were invalid!"

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's overstating things by quite a bit. Three skills hardly constitute the bulk of the rules. They aren't even 5% of the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

It is simple logic. If NPC can convince PCs via social rules, then it follows they can influence the goals of the PC. There is no way around it.

If a NPC can convince the PC that doing X is a good idea, then it follows that NPC can set doing X as the goal of the PC. It is inescapable.

Every party just needs a 20 charisma, persuasion specialized bard! Whenever an NPC persuades one of the PCs to do something he wouldn't otherwise do, the bard can just persuade him back to his original state.

 

[pemerton]

It would not be great storytelling if it was NPC saying "revenge is dumb" and rolling 30 on their persuasion check.

As I've already posted upthread, this is an argument against terrible resolution systems. And probably terrible approaches to framing as well. Nothing more.