NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TwoSix]

In which case that's the sign of an inadequate or nonexistent session 0.

Quite possibly, although to be fair, I imagine a lot of players have never really thought about this particular issue that deeply. It's pretty complex, and certainly one where you might never have seen someone trying to play differently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

And to be fair, contrary to my comment above, even if you have a session 0, there's no assurance that people will realize they have to talk about things about that. That's still kind of a session 0 failure, but possibly an unavoidable one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have explained many times in this thread. Players are strongly encouraged to protect their PCs from negative consequences. It's not fair to make them decide fairly how hard it should be to deliver a bad result to their own PC.

While I agree its uncommon, I don't think there's anything unfair about doing that; I'd call it honest and principled play. It may be their internal model of the character isn't rigorous enough to do so, but that's a different question. If I know my character well, I should know and be able to tell you honestly what will work and what won't in manipulating them (and I think people who think manipulating their character is impossible are people who have a view of human nature more fantastic than anything the game is telling them).

This separate from whether people want to.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Everyone who thinks the social skills should work on the PCs the same way they do on NPCs. So quite a few people.

Whenever I point out that (at least in 5e) the process people are arguing for is in fact NOT the same in both directions, I either get crickets, or an argument for why it can't actually be the same. Which I suppose is fine, but that does in fact mean that it's not the same.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And to be fair, contrary to my comment above, even if you have a session 0, there's no assurance that people will realize they have to talk about things about that. That's still kind of a session 0 failure, but possibly an unavoidable one.

Yeah, I was going to say that. I'm getting a vibe that some people think my stance...that players have to roleplay the results of social skill rolls...is totally crazy, and if I'm going to have such heretical beliefs I should definitely bring them up in session 0.

The reality is that I have never, with any group, encountered a situation where a player was told they had to abide by the result of such a roll. It has definitely never come up that an NPC has "rolled Persuade" on a PC, and in the many cases where a player has said, "Can I tell if the NPC is lying?" and the DM has used a roll, I've never seen a failed roll mean that the player has to believe the NPC, only that they don't know if the NPC is lying.

So, yeah, this is definitely something that could be overlooked in session 0!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it's nonsense to suggest that that DMs are not also 'encouraged' (in a similar passive way) to protect their plots. And the potentially negative impact on the game from that is so much greater than it is from a player not playing along with something that was randomly determined in the first place.

So I simply don't buy the argument that players are less trustworthy than DMs and they need guardrails.

You are welcome to disagree. As I've said above, I don't run forced plots so have no reason to protect story. I have, on the other hand, seen many players do everything they can think of to avoid a negative consequence for their PC, whether that makes sense under the circumstances or not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I was going to say that. I'm getting a vibe that some people think my stance...that players have to roleplay the results of social skill rolls...is totally crazy, and if I'm going to have such heretical beliefs I should definitely bring them up in session 0.

I have to point out I think you're misrepresenting them, but I think there's a big gap between assuming people won't think that's necessary and thinking that their skill roll will also matter, and if the latter is not your position (and its clearly not the position of a lot of OSR people at least), I think you should be bringing that up, especially if you're running a game that assumes the die roll is important.

The reality is that I have never, with any group, encountered a situation where a player was told they had to abide by the result of such a roll. It has definitely never come up that an NPC has "rolled Persuade" on a PC, and in the many cases where a player has said, "Can I tell if the NPC is lying?" and the DM has used a roll, I've never seen a failed roll mean that the player has to believe the NPC, only that they don't know if the NPC is lying.

I think the more common case in the latter is at least "You don't think they're lying from what you can tell", and if you've never seen that, I have to gently suggest you've lived in a bit of a bubble here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A different question; even games that have their thumb on the scale in terms of giving PCs advantages NPCs don't don't always treat them differently in the fiction, per se.

They don't always, but I have seen too many examples where those things go hand-in-hand to ignore the possibility.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You are welcome to disagree. As I've said above, I don't run forced plots so have no reason to protect story. I have, on the other hand, seen many players do everything they can think of to avoid a negative consequence for their PC, whether that makes sense under the circumstances or not.

Yeah, I've seen players do that, too. But....it doesn't really negatively impact the game, except maybe earning some sour looks from other players who would have done it differently.

And, like you, I don't run forced plots (at least...gosh...I hope I don't!) but I've had a couple of experiences with DMs who do, and unlike the player who doesn't do things "the way I would have done it", it is a serious downer for everybody at the table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They don't always, but I have seen too many examples where those things go hand-in-hand to ignore the possibility.

I don't think too many game systems assume that PC Glow is an in-setting function, and even less that its visible (TORG absolutely assumes PCs are special in a concrete in-game way, but its something most people have no easy way to spot); in most cases where the setting and people in it treat PCs differently its because PCs are recognizably more capable than the majority of NPCs, not because the qualitative difference is visible.