NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Thomas Shey]

And for me this is somewhat of a Schrödinger's Cat sort of thing. If you're rolling in secret, and the player has not declared any action, and presumably either result won't break the game, why are you leaving it to RNG? (Other than....tradition?)

Because I think the information the player will be able to acquire is uncertain, but acquiring it is possible.

Not just in any particular game. I'm really asking, "Why do we design games this way?"

See above. Because determinism in this sort of thing does not seem like an appropriate model.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, if you want to eliminate the random factor, you can effectively compare the passive score in the skill against the DC. Then the character skill still matters but there is no roll.

Yes. And....

....the DM could say, "Ok, I think that (challenge) is about a DC 12. What's the PC's passive skill?" And that might feel like they are using "the rules".

But not only are they making up the DC, they are (probably) also factoring in what they know about the PCs, at least subconsciously.

So maybe just skip the charade of objective mechanics and choose whatever will be more interesting?

Can be picked by whom? Certainly there are more skilled and less skilled rogues and some locks are easier to pick than others?

Sure. And the less skilled ones take longer. But, remember, no time pressure.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm now thinking about @Thomas Shey 's comments about the difference between "You can't tell if the NPC is lying" and "You think the NPC is telling the truth."

It's entirely possible that I am "sheltered" and really have never heard the latter. (I mean, I took a decade or two off from RPGs, and don't go to conventions, and have only done limited open table play at FLGS's.). But, really, "You believe the NPC" or "You believe there are no traps" is just anathema to how I've always played RPGs. So if I have heard that, I must have translated it in my mind: "Surely he just means I can't tell...because nobody would actually tell me what my character thinks. Would they?"

Any of number of games tell players information all the time, including their basic assessment of same. What they don't do is tell people how to assess what to do with that information.

Like "You think the NPC is telling the truth."

First, you can't be sure you're right; you can just assess based on how good you (as in, the character) usually are at spotting such things. But you still have to assess whether being wrong is worse than ignoring that information.

Second, even if the NPC is telling the truth, they could be wrong. For any number of reasons including flaws in their own perception to not understanding the situation properly.

Thirdly, them telling the truth may not be the whole picture. It may change your understanding of the situation, but not necessarily meaning you'll do a specific thing with that fact.

None of these are the same as just ignoring it, nor not accepting the information as presented--that you think the NPC is telling the truth as best they know it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

DM fiat does not have to exclude character skill.

I've noted before that my faith in any GM handling this in a consistently fair and appropriate fashion (including myself) is, essentially, nonexistent. That is not a critique; it is an assessment of human nature.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because I think the information the player will be able to acquire is uncertain, but acquiring it is possible.



See above. Because determinism in this sort of thing does not seem like an appropriate model.

"does not seem like an appropriate model" is not a hugely compelling argument.

I can't help but think that there's some element of "we've always done things this way and it's uncomfortable to think about throwing it away."

I'll tell you that when I run Shadowdark, I usually let rogues pick locks automatically if there is no time pressure. (And, if there is, they can keep re-rolling, using up more time with each attempt.)

And then occasionally they find a door that, even with unlimited time, is unpickable.

Believe me, they REALLY want to know what's behind those doors.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've noted before that my faith in any GM handling this in a consistently fair and appropriate fashion (including myself) is, essentially, nonexistent. That is not a critique; it is an assessment of human nature.

But...you're ok with them setting the DC?

 

[Bill Zebub]

By the way, I realize I'm proposing some very unorthodox GMing. Not the "you can't tell players what their characters think" part, which I think is fairly common, but the "Why bother rolling dice for all these things?" part.

I realize that. I realize it's a tough sell. And, like I've said, there are areas where I'm still conflicted in how to apply it, such as "knowledge checks".

But I do think there are assumptions about how RPGs are played that are worth questioning. If you start with the basic foundations of what makes a game of any genre compelling, and what sorts of games have those characteristics and which don't, I think it becomes clear that some longstanding practices in RPGs are left wanting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"does not seem like an appropriate model" is not a hugely compelling argument.

You seem to be under the impression I expect to convince you of my choice here. I find that vanishingly unlikely. I'm explaining my position, not trying to change yours.

I can't help but think that there's some element of "we've always done things this way and it's uncomfortable to think about throwing it away."

You're welcome to think what you will.

I'll tell you that when I run Shadowdark, I usually let rogues pick locks automatically if there is no time pressure. (And, if there is, they can keep re-rolling, using up more time with each attempt.)

Depending on the lock involved, and the basic knowledge of the person picking it, this is just reality. There are simple locks I can pick if you give me a couple of tools and I can fiddle with it all day. I don't know that I consider that particularly relevant to the majority of tasks.

And then occasionally they find a door that, even with unlimited time, is unpickable.

Which is probably a factor of it exceeding their available skill, tools, or both.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But...you're ok with them setting the DC?

In a hidden roll, its not ideal, but there's no ideal solution there IMO.

 

[Thomas Shey]

By the way, I realize I'm proposing some very unorthodox GMing. Not the "you can't tell players what their characters think" part, which I think is fairly common, but the "Why bother rolling dice for all these things?" part.

I realize that. I realize it's a tough sell. And, like I've said, there are areas where I'm still conflicted in how to apply it, such as "knowledge checks".

But I do think there are assumptions about how RPGs are played that are worth questioning. If you start with the basic foundations of what makes a game of any genre compelling, and what sorts of games have those characteristics and which don't, I think it becomes clear that some longstanding practices in RPGs are left wanting.

It is not that I'm hostile to some people finding not-rolling desirable to one degree or another; after all, most games suggest not doing so under some circumstances. I just find that in most cases where I care about the outcome, I don't believe its deterministic, and making it so seems unattractive.