NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Maxperson]

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.

They can't be factored in, since to ignore them and force the PC to believe the lie would be nonsensical.

 

[TwoSix]

They can't be factored in, since to ignore them and force the PC to believe the lie would be nonsensical.

If the result of an ability check would be nonsensical, then the ability check shouldn't be being made in the first place.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Please keep in mind that a lot of the people with opposing views to yours in this thread are pretty adamant in favor of fiction-first games, play styles, and approaches.

 

[TwoSix]

Please keep in mind that a lot of the people with opposing views to yours in this thread are pretty adamant in favor of fiction-first games, play styles, and approaches.

I certainly prefer the conversation happen first between a PC and a NPC, to see if a check is even warranted. If it is, then we can discuss the stakes of the check.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

First of all, you don't always get to choose exactly who you play with if you want to play at all. Secondly, this sort of issue isn't always revealed at the beginning of a campaign, either because the player didn't realize it, didn't expect it to be an issue, or was hoping to get away with it. Thirdly, if you are clear on your playstyle in session 0 and this still becomes an issue, than IMO it is (largely) not on you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, but they are clearly defined social rules, which is what you asked.

Sure. And those aren't symmetric, either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You know, there are plenty of situations where it's IMO appropriate for social rules to work on PCs that don't involve forcing them to overturn their entire belief system. Can we talk about them occasionally too?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Please keep in mind that a lot of the people with opposing views to yours in this thread are pretty adamant in favor of fiction-first games, play styles, and approaches.

Um, sure? Not sure I understand your point.

I'll dispute the "fiction first" descriptor, if we're still talking about how to resolve PC reactions to social interactions. Rolling dice is one way to determine the fiction of a character's internal mental state. Letting players choose it is another.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They can't be factored in, since to ignore them and force the PC to believe the lie would be nonsensical.

I don't know what you mean. Please clarify.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, but they are clearly defined social rules, which is what you asked.

Ok, but very, very narrowly, and not in the context we've been talking about. They don't define, for example, how to determine if an NPC believes a PC lie, let alone vice versa.