NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[payn]

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).

Strawman.

 

[Maxperson]

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

That's why the game doesn't use it on players.

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.

I disagree. There have been many times where the players ask one NPC to try and convince or deceive another NPC for some reason or another. Social skills are very useful for me to determine those interactions as I really don't care to roleplay with myself if I can help it.

Plus, deception vs. insight can tell the PC whether the NPC appears to or believes he is being truthful or not. It can't tell the PC what to believe, but it is still useful in PC/NPC interactions.

 

[Maxperson]

Strawman.

Given that I didn't attribute anything to you(or anyone else) there, it can't be a Strawman.

Your posts responding only with a fallacy, though, are the Fallacy Fallacy.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Disagree. The easiest fix is to let players run their characters the way DMs run theirs: if the player thinks the outcome is uncertain, call for a roll from the DMs NPC. I think once that roll is called, the tacit agreement is binding. That's not loss of agency.

It's when the DM says (in effect): "My character is making a roll to see if they can persuade your character to do such-and-such..." and starts rolling that I think there's a problem. Because, yeah, if the player is free to ignore the result, why roll?

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.

Again it depends on what game we are talking about. There are games in which non-magical social influence has mechanics as clearly defined as, say, charm or suggestion spells. Which game are you talking about?

 

[payn]

Given that I didn't attribute anything to you(or anyone else) there, it can't be a Strawman.

Your posts responding only with a fallacy, though, are the Fallacy Fallacy.

Just word.

 

[TwoSix]

That's why the game doesn't use it on players.

I disagree. There have been many times where the players ask one NPC to try and convince or deceive another NPC for some reason or another. Social skills are very useful for me to determine those interactions as I really don't care to roleplay with myself if I can help it.

Plus, deception vs. insight can tell the PC whether the NPC appears to or believes he is being truthful or not. It can't tell the PC what to believe, but it is still useful in PC/NPC interactions.

NPCs affecting other NPCs is just the DM doing their job framing. It's superflous to the conversation. I'm not going to roll to see if an NPC duke can bluff an NPC king.

And as for the Deception vs Insight check, if I fail it, I play as if my character believes the deception. Otherwise, why bother rolling?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Many other games get by treating them essentially identically and have for decades. I'm not going to say that's a good idea in the D&D sphere, but its not a generically bad thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

NPCs affecting other NPCs is just the DM doing their job framing. It's superflous to the conversation. I'm not going to roll to see if an NPC duke can bluff an NPC king.

That's actually an interesting situation. Yes, I agree it seems obvious you wouldn't roll dice in that situation. But explaining why could be illuminating.

I say this because some of the arguments, that I've seen in this thread, applied in favor of forcing social rolls would apply equally in those situations.

And as for the Deception vs Insight check, if I fail it, I play as if my character believes the deception. Otherwise, why bother rolling?

Did the DM command you to roll, or did you say, "I'm not sure what I would do...I think I'll let the dice decide."

 

[TwoSix]

Again it depends on what game we are talking about. There are games in which non-magical social influence has mechanics as clearly defined as, say, charm or suggestion spells. Which game are you talking about?

Any game with rules for setting stakes and rolling to see what happens, which 5e comfortably fits into.

An ability or skill check is NOT, in any measure, a roll to determine how competently an action is taken (although narration to indicate such is certainly allowed). It is a resolution method to determine if a given intent with uncertain success is actually successful.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Many other games get by treating them essentially identically and have for decades. I'm not going to say that's a good idea in the D&D sphere, but its not a generically bad thing.

Agreed. I have a preference for NPCs being very simple and even abstract compared to PCs. But that's a preference; I'm not arguing it's objectively better.