NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I probably have heard it expressed that way, but I haven't really thought about it because there's never been...that I can remember...a constraint placed on the player's choices as a result.

 

[Xamnam]

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.

I've even seen "I'd rather know my dice result before I portray anything, specifically so that I can more accurately roleplay what my attempt looks like."

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've even seen "I'd rather know my dice result before I portray anything, specifically so that I can more accurately roleplay what my attempt looks like."

Oh I've definitely seen that, too. And while it's not in the rules (for 5e), it's totally fine to improvise your own roleplaying cues.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I probably have heard it expressed that way, but I haven't really thought about it because there's never been...that I can remember...a constraint placed on the player's choices as a result.

Even if there isn't, there's a non-trivial difference in the information provided.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Even if there isn't, there's a non-trivial difference in the information provided.

Semantically, perhaps. But if it has no impact, by mutual (perhaps tacit) agreement, then it is in fact trivial.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

There are times I seriously wonder if modern D&D does in fact assume "PC glow". In fact, there is textual evidence in 5.5 suggesting that the game now does assume it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are times I seriously wonder if modern D&D does in fact assume "PC glow". In fact, there is textual evidence in 5.5 suggesting that the game now does assume it.

As in, it has an in-setting existence rather than just being a way to push PCs into a certain level of operancy? If so, that's unusual outside games where there's a metaphysical reason for that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Semantically, perhaps. But if it has no impact, by mutual (perhaps tacit) agreement, then it is in fact trivial.

I disagree its trivial. Unless you distrust the GM involved, I don't find it any more trivial than "You can't tell there's a trap" and "You don't think there's a trap."

 

[Maxperson]

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

Unfortunately, not all DMs ser what the players see. I've had to tell DMs after such a roll that I was ignoring the result, because X, Y, and Z showed the result to be nonsensical. Fortunately they agreed with me, but if they hadn't there would have been a major issue.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

As soon as a system takes all of it into account and isn't all or nothing.

Right now using the ability check rules as they are writhen on PCs treats both the situations you refer to, and overturning PC goals equally.