NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Maxperson]

Not really, because now the NPC has mechanical elements that don't work on PCs for arbitrary reasons, while those same elements do work if they're on a PC.

That's 100% false. There is nothing arbitrary with a good reason. Preserving player agency is the opposite of arbitrary.

And again, both PCs and NPCs have the choice of whether to believe or not, so in the fiction nothing has changed, Both the PC human and NPC human are treated as the same creature. Different mechanical representations for that choice don't make the choice disappear or treat them as different creatures.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ohhh I get to say this finally! 3E fixed the PC and NPC difference problem but but Grogs wanted tradition.

"Grogs wanted tradition" is pretty dismissive toward people who aren't Grogs and have reasons other than tradition for preferring a design choice.

In fact, here's a post to that effect upthread:

NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

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"...

www.enworld.org

 

[Maxperson]

It's really simple. Either I can override the die roll and make my own decision for my PC, preserving my agency, or I can't override the die roll, losing my agency in the process, and it's the equivalent of magical PC mind control.

 

[payn]

"Grogs wanted tradition" is pretty dismissive toward people who aren't Grogs and have reasons other than tradition for preferring a design choice.

In fact, here's a post to that effect upthread:

NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

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"...

www.enworld.org

 

[payn]

It's really simple. Either I can override the die roll and make my own decision for my PC, preserving my agency, or I can't override the die roll, losing my agency in the process, and it's the equivalent of magical PC mind control.

False dichotomy

 

[TwoSix]

It's really simple. Either I can override the die roll and make my own decision for my PC, preserving my agency, or I can't override the die roll, losing my agency in the process, and it's the equivalent of magical PC mind control.

If you can override a mechanic because you don't like it, why bother with the mechanic?

I mean, the easiest "fix" is simply to not have NPCs ever use social skills. But, IF you choose to use them, they should have teeth, just like any other mechanic does.

If my PC fails a save against charm or suggestion, I play that character with the charm or suggestion in place. If my PC gets turned into a centaur by reincarnation, then I play a centaur. Any game state that enters the fiction because of mechanical process, I'm bound as a player to respect and incorporate. That's the point of having rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, and so now rather than saying "sorry, that was meant to be funny" and acknowledge that tone is often lost when typing, you're posting an animated GIF calling me clueless?

Look, I'd love to get into it with the "jokes" but historically my rough-and-tumble way of engaging keeps resulting in warnings from mods.

But turning the other cheek isn't really my thing.

 

[Maxperson]

False dichotomy

DM: The NPC succeeds his his persuasion roll, so you hand over the McGuffin that is in your hand.
Me: I would never do that, so I refuse.
DM: Sorry, I've determined that it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility and the die roll succeeded.
Me: But I would never do that, so I refuse.
DM: You hand over the McGuffin anyway, since the persuasion check succeeded.

How is that not the equivalent to mind control and loss of my agency to decide what my character does?

It's not a False Dichotomy at all. Either I have full control to decide what my character thinks and does, or I don't. There is no middle ground where I still have full control(100% agency).

 

[payn]

Ok, and so now rather than saying "sorry, that was meant to be funny" and acknowledge that tone is often lost when typing, you're posting an animated GIF calling me clueless?

Look, I'd love to get into it with the "jokes" but historically my rough-and-tumble way of engaging keeps resulting in warnings from mods.

But I'm also not going to just ignore the dismissiveness.

Final post in this thread to you then, but you;ve been very dismissive yourself. I apologize and will not post as such in the future.

 

[pemerton]

the mechanics are dictating the player goals.

Is this a reference to Exalted 2e? Or to a certain approach to 5e D&D? Or some other RPG?

If I were playing a game in which it is mechanically defined how it works for a PC to influence an NPC in that way, with no judgement calls or decisions by the GM (e.g., the rules clearly define the target roll and what success means, and there is no option for the GM to rule that the goal is simply not attainable), then yeah I would agree it should work the way you describe.

Here are some possible elements of a social conflict, which can factor into its resolution:

*What is at stake, from the PCs' (and hence players') perspective, and from the NPC's perspective;

*What moves the GM is permitted to make for the NPCs they are controlling;

*To what degree the PCs are able to risk, or preserve, whatever it is that their players have put at stake in respect of them;

*How decisions made during the course of resolution, both by players and by the GM, factor into outcomes.​

Until we know how a particular social conflict system incorporates and expresses these various elements, we have literally no idea whether or not it permits the GM to dictate the players' goals.