NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Gradine]

Here's the thing; NPCs shouldn't be built or played like PCs. If you cast away the idea that NPCs should have skill bonuses and proficiencies and Deception modifiers the "problem" ceases to exist.

I'm not even a little bit an OSR-loving grognard but the ideas that PCs and NPCs (and "monsters" in general) should all follow the exact same rules from top to bottom is the worst thing that Wizards of the Coast did to the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's the thing; NPCs shouldn't be built or played like PCs. If you cast away the idea that NPCs should have skill bonuses and proficiencies and Deception modifiers the "problem" ceases to exist.

I'm not even a little but an OSR-loving grognard but the ideas that PCs and NPCs (and "monsters" in general) should all follow the exact same rules from top to bottom is the worst thing that Wizards of the Coast did to the game.

Perhaps not, but IMO they are meant to represent the same creature, even if how they are mechanically constructed is different.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. But basically more situations there are where mechanics override the PC volition this way, less agency there is. And it is a matter of preference at what point it becomes too much.

I will assert quite confidently that the players in my Torchbearer game have more agency - to set and pursue goals for their PCs, to shape the fiction, to establish what play is about - than in the typical 5e D&D game. The presence of social mechanics is actually one manifestation of this - they (i) allow the players to bind the GM, and (ii) allow the players to establish binding stakes, and (iii) allow the players to shape the way the GM frames scenes that follow.

 

[pemerton]

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?

If you mean for any arbitrary X, then why would this be so?

What are the rules for framing? For establishing NPC goals? What is the method for establishing what is at stake in the social conflict?

You are assuming that the answer to all the questions in the previous paragraph is whatever the GM decides. But that is not true of games like Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, or Marvel Heroic RP.

 

[pemerton]

And I would say that since the mother is an NPC, if the DM wants her to chime in that's totally fair game.

Here is another difference - not all RPGs permit the GM to decide whatever they like about relationship NPCs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you mean for any arbitrary X, then why would this be so?

I don't mean that, nor have any of my examples been that. I mean a thing the character could relatively plausibly be convinced of given the rest of the fiction.

Like in your example it is perfectly plausible that the characters would be convinced to surrender by a superior foe. But it still deprival of agency on very important decision to have mechanics force that on them. Similar situation happened in my game. Except it was the players' choice what to do and it lead to one of the most memorable fights in the campaign and to a cool interparty aftermath between those who would have favoured surrender and the character who didn't and thus almost got them all killed. I simply cannot fathom playing it so that it is the dice that dictate such important decisions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

I will assert quite confidently that the players in my Torchbearer game have more agency - to set and pursue goals for their PCs, to shape the fiction, to establish what play is about - than in the typical 5e D&D game. The presence of social mechanics is actually one manifestation of this - they (i) allow the players to bind the GM, and (ii) allow the players to establish binding stakes, and (iii) allow the players to shape the way the GM frames scenes that follow.

How about instead of asserting it confidently you actually explained how it works?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Perhaps not, but IMO they are meant to represent the same creature, even if how they are mechanically constructed is different.

Yes, and I do appreciate certain level of symmetry here. But what is important to recognise that the role and purpose of PCs and NPCs in the game is different. The PC is the only thing in the game the player controls, and they're (hopefully) immersed in their first person perspective. Any individual NPC is a tiny fraction of what the GM controls and they're not immersed in them in similar way. Think of the old school reaction tables where the GM could roll how a monster would react when they meet the PCs. In a game where such were used, you probably would not require PCs to roll on such a table to see how they'd react when they meet someone? It is the same thing here; we are willing to randomise part of the NPCs reaction in a social situation via the skill roll, even though that same thing is for the player to decide for their PC.

 

[Aldarc]

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

Dare to prove us wrong that this isn't true?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dare to prove us wrong that this isn't true?

I just answered for myself upthread.

Others may have their own answers.