NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

DM fiat does not have to exclude character skill.

And just as I trust players to roleplay their own characters, I trust DMs to make these determinations in the best interest of the game.

P.S. I like how Shadowdark treats lock picking for rogues: if there's no time pressure or other notable consequences of failure, they always succeed at picking locks that can be picked. So if the GM doesn't a door to be bypassed this way, they shouldn't use a door with a pickable lock.

What do you do if there is time pressure?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I have to agree. This is why we have mechanics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I

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's not "questioning" if you've already decided longstanding practices are wanting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here are four very broad approaches to this (I'm sure there are more, or different ones, but this is how I'm choosing to frame it):

• The really old school method of describing how you search prod every square inch of the dungeon. Con: a ton of game time is wasted narrating all this searching.
• The more streamlined and less repetitive method of just "rolling to search". Con: still wastes game time.
• The even more streamlined version of using passive search skills. Con: at this point the players aren't even 'playing'. The only relevant player decision happened at chargen.
• What I propose: Either telegraph their existence so that players (which then becomes the old-school method, but without time wasted when there are no secrets) or just announce their existence and make the opening/disarming the challenge. Con: it's hard to think of enough novel ideas, so you have to get rid of 90% of your traps and secret doors. Which I think is fine.

To me this just reads as, "I don't like traps and secret doors, and want to minimize the idea of hidden things in general".

 

[Gradine]

Many other games get by treating them essentially identically and have for decades. I'm not going to say that's a good idea in the D&D sphere, but its not a generically bad thing.

Sure, but I would say that it has been bad for D&D, at the very least

 

[Bill Zebub]

To me this just reads as, "I don't like traps and secret doors, and want to minimize the idea of hidden things in general".

I certainly don't like mindless repetition and pointless dice rolling.

But I love really well thought-out traps and exciting secret doors. If finding and/or opening the door, or successfully getting past a trap, isn't a memorable part of the session, I'd rather just not even bother.

One time, after the party had deduced there must be a secret door, then deduced the probable location, and finally figured out (via hints in other parts of the building) the trick to opening it, when the last piece fell into place I said, very softly, "click." The whole table erupted in cheers.

I like those kinds of secret doors.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's not "questioning" if you've already decided longstanding practices are wanting.

They are definitely wanting.

Whether there are better (including "practical") solutions I don't know.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but I would say that it has been bad for D&D, at the very least

I'd love to argue because I'm not fundamentally fond of treating PCs and NPCs mechanically different--but my 3e experience makes me reluctantly agree with you. At least any version of D&D with the kind of moving parts modern versions do (and older versions I for the most part found over simplistic).

 

[pemerton]

Yes. It would work so in Exalted 2e, it doesn't actually work in D&D 5e, as PCs cannot be affected by social skills like the NPCs can, but several people here insist that they should. You also have given several examples (from Torchbearer and Prince Valiant, I believe) which seem to imply that this is possible in those games. Given that you have had several opportunities to explain why this would not be the case in those games, but have failed to do so, I must assume it is the case.

I've also asserted, multiple times, that it's not the case. And I've pointed to various factors of a social resolution system that would need to be established in particular ways to make it the case. (See eg post 800 upthread.)

Perhaps it would be illuminating if you told us how these things are handled in a game that you deem to have "good" social conflict system? Perhaps you could use the situation in your Torchbearer game, where the characters were convinced to surrender, and explain how the situation was handled mechanically regarding the parameters you outlined above?

You can read the actual play report, if you like. I've posted it once or twice already in this thread.

In short: the PCs considered their options for entering the Moathouse, and opted to try and trick their way in. The bandits began rather sceptically. The conflict resolution system was applied - as in, actions were scripted and resolved, with the players speaking for their PCs and me (the GM) speaking for the bandits.

At the end, the bandits won but owed a minor compromise - so the PCs surrendered (ie the bandits got their intent) but the PCs kept secret that the Dire Wolf from the Moathouse is actually their ally.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In short: the PCs considered their options for entering the Moathouse, and opted to try and trick their way in. The bandits began rather sceptically. The conflict resolution system was applied - as in, actions were scripted and resolved, with the players speaking for their PCs and me (the GM) speaking for the bandits.

At the end, the bandits won but owed a minor compromise - so the PCs surrendered (ie the bandits got their intent) but the PCs kept secret that the Dire Wolf from the Moathouse is actually their ally.

In this conflict resolution system, is there any place where the participants evaluate the effectiveness of the approach, and that evaluation changes the likelihood of various results? (Which might reflect a player's thespian qualities, but could also just mean the cleverness of the strategy itself.)