NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[payn]

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.

Im gonna start a new thread on it, but I had an interesting experience with a new group recently. The short of it is my style is not what theya re used to. I kept asking them "how would/is your character going to approach this?" followed by a bit of "just tell us which skill to roll!!" So, there is usually a forming, norming, storming of playstyle in newish groups IME.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Oh, yeah, I agree with all of this. I don't really think you can avoid playing with people of different playstyles. I just think there are some playstyle differences, especially regarding various forms of player knowledge, where it's pointless to try to force a playstyle on unwilling players.

 

[Aldarc]

Um, sure? Not sure I understand your point.

You seem to be implying that the people who disagree with you subscribe to mechanics first approaches.

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.

It's very basic. Just because a game rolls dice doesn't mean that it's necessarily "mechanics first." WotC tried to make 5e more "fiction first" with 5e, but in many places, it's still pretty "mechanics first." This is contrast to games like Fate and PbtA, which are fiction first games. In the latter there is rolling when moves are triggered by actions in the fiction.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You seem to be implying that the people who disagree with you subscribe to mechanics first approaches.


It's very basic. Just because a game rolls dice doesn't mean that it's necessarily "mechanics first." WotC tried to make 5e more "fiction first" with 5e, but in many places, it's still pretty "mechanics first." This is contrast to games like Fate and PbtA, which are fiction first games. In the latter there is rolling when moves are triggered by actions in the fiction.

Ahhh. Ok, now I understand what you were saying. No, I was not suggesting that everybody disagrees with me about how social skills should be applied just grabs for dice without first narrating. I only meant "opposite" from the scenario Micah described, where he said (implied?) that a player with my preferred approach is the outlier who should have brought up their playstyle in session 0.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

There are rules for such things, however, even in games that use reaction rolls, and there's no reason those rules can't be used to affect PCs.

 

[Aldarc]

Gotcha. Part of the problem here with 5e is that these expectations are rarely clear because the advice in 5e D&D mostly kind of says, "You're the GM? You can do whatever you want!" So experiences can vary wild between tables. (Feature and not a flaw for some, though a flaw and not a feature for me.)

This one reason why I prefer TTRPGs that are a little more vocal or opinionated about how they should be run. It generally means that when I sit down at the table of someone running the game, it's more likely that our expectations about the game are aligned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You seem to be implying that the people who disagree with you subscribe to mechanics first approaches.


It's very basic. Just because a game rolls dice doesn't mean that it's necessarily "mechanics first." WotC tried to make 5e more "fiction first" with 5e, but in many places, it's still pretty "mechanics first." This is contrast to games like Fate and PbtA, which are fiction first games. In the latter there is rolling when moves are triggered by actions in the fiction.

Plenty of OSR-styled D&D games, as well as the older versions of D&D they are based on, can be played fiction-first as you describe as well.

 

[TwoSix]

Plenty of OSR-styled D&D games, as well as the older versions of D&D they are based on, can be played fiction-first as you describe as well.

I'd go so far as to say fiction-first is a near requirement for principled OSR play.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are rules for such things, however, even in games that use reaction rolls, and there's no reason those rules can't be used to affect PCs.

Sorry, but there are reasons, you just don't value them.

As for "rules for such things", most of the examples I see involve guidance for the DM on how to set the DC, often including a caveat that the DM might rule that the desired outcome simply isn't possible. I personally have never seen a system that does not require some kind of judgment call about feasibility, unlike, say, a spell that explicitly says what the difficulty level is.

So my question is: if one is going to assume those rules can be applied in reverse to PCs (which might have to be assumed if the rules don't state as such) do you also reverse the role of who determines possibility and sets difficulty? If not, why not? Is it because players can't be trusted with that power?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Gotcha. Part of the problem here with 5e is that these expectations are rarely clear because the advice in 5e D&D mostly kind of says, "You're the GM? You can do whatever you want!" So experiences can vary wild between tables. (Feature and not a flaw for some, though a flaw and not a feature for me.)

This one reason why I prefer TTRPGs that are a little more vocal or opinionated about how they should be run. It generally means that when I sit down at the table of someone running the game, it's more likely that our expectations about the game are aligned.

Agree that's a huge problem with 5e. Their attempt to be a big tent have has left many people confused.