NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

The ultimate point of a RPG's mechanics is to introduce surprises - stuff that people aren't just going to agree is what happens next. I mean, if the mechanics didn't do this then we could just proceed by way of agreement and free-ranging negotiation.

What elements of the fiction are within the scope of such surprises is a matter of rules design. Just to give one example, in 3E, 4e and 5e D&D a PC is basically always able to move wherever they want, subject to rules about unoccupied squares and the like. This is not a site, in the fiction, of surprise. Rather, these rules facilitate other stuff - like the making of attack rolls, the forcing of saving throws, etc - which are the site of surprise.

But in Burning Wheel - just to pick an example - movement in the context of the extended melee conflict rules (Fight!) does require an opposed check against one's foe. There is a possibility of surprise in a site of the fiction that does not yield such possibilities in the last 25 year's worth of D&D.

Or consider spellcasting: again, in D&D a player's declaration that their PC casts a spell is typically always successful - spells are not miscast and don't fizzle, etc, except in very particular circumstances. But other RPGs are quite different - Rolemaster is one; Torchbearer 2e is another.

And the same variety of possibilities and approaches obtains in the context of social elements of the fiction. In your approach, the PC is only affected, socially, if the player chooses to play their PC that way. So in the context of the process of play, it is all about the player making decisions for their PC, and others going along because they respect the players' "ownership" of their PC.

But in a game with social mechanics, how a PC responds socially can be a matter of surprise, just as (say) whether or not an enemy hoplite runs the PC through with their spear.

I agree about the necessity of surprise, but it is not sufficient. The card game War has a surprise with every turn, but because there are no decisions to make (and, more specifically, partially but not completely informed decisions) it's boring for anybody over the age of 10. Participants must have more than one choice, and the optimal choice must be unknown, for the 'surprise' to be meaningful.

Elsewhere I've criticized for the TOR 1e Journey mechanics for not allowing any decisions. There are multiple dice rolls, by both GM and player, with plenty of surprises, and some nice flavor text. But no meaningful decisions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?



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?

TSR Reaction rolls and their OSR descendents are pretty clearly defined.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To give you an idea of what the NPC believes. Is he being sincere or not? Many times the players roleplay like you say above and go with it. Sometimes, though, other things in the fiction still cast doubt on what the NPC is saying, even if he appears truthful, so they either don't believe him or reserve judgment.

Being forced to believe on a failed roll prevents the underlined from being a possibility. The idea that there can be strong evidence of falsehood that I've picked up elsewhere in the fiction, yet a persuasion check forces my PC to ignore that evidence and believe anyway, is bupkis.

Presumably those "other factors" you mention would have an effect on the success or failure of the roll in question; ie, they are represented by a modifier, and factored in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, there's another reason for that. And it took me a long time to (grudgingly) agree with it.

The degree of detail many 3e characters had was, in practice, prohibitive for a GM to keep track of beyond a certain point, because he was managing multiple NPCs. This is a particular quirk of games in the D&D sphere and those directly derived, because it is so bloody prone to special casing.

This might not be visible to those who only played games up to, say, 8th level, but about the time you started to hit double digits, it was impossible to ignore. You really needed to strip down NPCs in some way for them to be practical to manage. Which is why pretty much every version of D&D and its offshoots since then has done so.

But just because you strip them down mechanically doesn't mean you need to strip them down narratively or otherwise treat them differently in the fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll agree with all of that. If the players are happy with the contested roll as you described above, then all is good, even if it's using 5e rules to play an older style of D&D.

What happens if a player speaks up and says, "Hey, I don't like the dice dictating to me how to play my character in these cases. I got a 1 on my Insight check, but I don't really believe the NPC, and I don't think it's fun to pretend to believe them." What happens then?

Well first if all I ask why they didn't bring up this stance of theirs earlier, ideally during session 0.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm sorry, I simply don't live in a world where I can expect a player to always ignore their PCs best interests sufficiently to roleplay a negative consequence of a social interaction when they should. Your world may be full of such paragons of roleplaying integrity. Mine is full of players who do the best they can, and DMs doing the same.

How does it work to force a player to do that, though? If a player isn't game to go along with the charade (of, say, pretending to believe an NPC, even though the player is convinced they are lying) there are a million ways to subvert that.

"My NPC rolled a nat 20, so he persuades you that he didn't steal your gem."
"Ok, I believe him. I'm going to pick his pocket anyway."
"But you believe he's not the thief."
"Yeah, I know. I just think he looks like he might have something valuable."

That in turn can lead to an argument about motivations, a deep distrust of the player, and ever more deceitful efforts by that player to circumvent the table's (or just the DM's?) prohibitions against metagaming.

If the player acts like this, clearly there's a disconnect in playstyles and somebody needs to find a new table.

If the player wants to act like this this, but doesn't, clearly there's a disconnect in playstyles and somebody needs to find a new table.

If the player doesn't want to do this, then no coercion was necessary in the first place.

So....why not just find people who share your playstyle in the first place?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well first if all I ask why they didn't bring up this stance of theirs earlier, ideally during session 0.

Maybe they didn't realize this new group plays that way, and this is the first time it has come up?

On Sunday I had the opposite situation: a new player kept reaching for dice and saying, "I'm going to make a Persuasion check to...". If I had known beforehand I would have explained that it's not how I do it.

 

[Maxperson]

You think the PC would be fine with rolling a Charisma (persuasion) check with an obviously successful result and the GM telling them, "no, the NPC doesn't believe you"? Because under your style the PC can absolutely do that, at any time and for any reason.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China. There are different rules for both sides to represent the same effect, how a creature chooses.

Under my style, by the way, the PC can never, ever do that since social skills don't work on PCs. There is no roll to ignore.

 

[Bill Zebub]

TSR Reaction rolls and their OSR descendents are pretty clearly defined.

Sure. And those aren't symmetric, either.

 

[Maxperson]

Who has argued that this is how D&D persuasion should work?

The people arguing that the PC can't go against a successful deception or persuasion check against their PC. They MUST roleplay the result of the roll. If the persuasion check is to get them to abandon a PC goal, then success forces the PC to abandon it. No post in favor of social skills working on PCs has carved out an exception for PC goals.