NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Aldarc]

But this isn't true in D&D - charm, fear etc magic has been a part of the game from its very origins.

Maybe you don't use those mechanical subsystems? I know there's been some discussion of these upthread, but I've not followed all the contributions from all the participants.

"But magic!"

 

[pemerton]

"But magic!"

The contrast between Domination in D&D, and similar effects in Burning Wheel (the Force of Will spell) and Torchbearer 2e (the Wormtongue spell) is interesting.

The flavour of Force of Will in BW revised is pretty unambiguous - the caster imprints their will upon the mind of the victim
but the mechanical effect is not entirely clear. When it came up in my game, I ruled that the player had to rewrite one of their PC's Beliefs to reflect the will of the naga who had ensorcelled the PC. I felt pleased with my intuitions when, in Gold edition, the spell was edited to expressly state that it requires the victim to rewrite a Belief.

Wormtongue, in TB2e, is quite clear: "Using this spell, a magician can add a goal or belief to an adventurer, townsfolk or other denizen. Or they may change the instinct of an adventurer or monster. Lastly they can change the creed of an adventurer, but they can’t add one. The casting obstacle is the victim's Will, or Nature for denizens that don't have a Will stat, +1 (goal), +2 (belief), +3 (instinct) or +4 (creed).

Adding or changing a PC's Goal, Belief, Instinct or Creed doesn't require the player of that character to declare any particular action. But it does create incentives, because the award of Fate and Persona is based around how a player plays into or against these aspects of the character.

There is still the element of "but magic", in that changing these core aspects of a character is not something that results from normal interactions. But it doesn't dictate the player's action declarations.

 

[Retros_x]

Deception unsuccessful: You tell the players that the NPC tried to decept them. They can decide how their character feels about that.

Deception successful: You tell the players just what the NPC tells them. Or that they don't know if the NPC tells the truth or not. They can decide how their character feels about that.

In both cases players have agency over their character. I don't see the problem.

Its similar to trap detection, either they find them or not, its still complete in their agency to go down a hallway.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.)

You can assert it, but unless you demonstrate how this happens it is meaningless. The thread was mainly about D&D and similar games and applying 5e mechanics to PCs. That I think would definitely be agency-robbing. If you bring examples from games that work radically differently, it would be useful to explain the crucial differences, as mere recounting of the events of the game doesn't really show it, rather the opposite.

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

The issue with the reports is that they do not sufficiently explain who decides what and when and how the mechanics are applied. They might be much clearer to a person who is already familiar with the game, but for a method of gauging how the game functions they're quite lacking.

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.

But did the players have an option to not to surrender? Can the character say, "ef this, I rather fight these mofos" and attack?

 

[Bill Zebub]

But this isn't true in D&D - charm, fear etc magic has been a part of the game from its very origins.

Maybe you don't use those mechanical subsystems? I know there's been some discussion of these upthread, but I've not followed all the contributions from all the participants.

Once again, please observe the difference between an explicitly written exception to the rule that the player decides what their character thinks and does, such as the written description and specific mechanics of a Charm spell, and a DM's arbitrary ruling when a NPC without such abilities talks at a PC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"But magic!"

As I just noted, it's not "because it's magic" (although that provides a convenient explanation for how it works) but because it's an explicit rule that overrides a more general rule.

In 5e:

1. General Rule: Standard play loop
2. More Specific Rule: Players decide what their characters think and do
3. Even More Specific Rule: (description of Fear spell)

3 overrides 2, 2 overrides 1

 

[Aldarc]

As I just noted, it's not "because it's magic" (although that provides a convenient explanation for how it works) but because it's an explicit rule that overrides a more general rule.

1. In 5e:
   General Rule: Standard play loop
2. More Specific Rule: Players decide what their characters think and do
3. Even More Specific Rule: (description of Fear spell)

3 overrides 2, 2 overrides 1

So how does the explicit rule of a warlord "overriding" the more general rule somehow break the game for you? Why does the fact that it's so incredibly non-magical abilities doing this that triggers you?

 

[Bill Zebub]

So how does the explicit rule of a warlord "overriding" the more general rule somehow break the game for you? Why does the fact that it's so incredibly non-magical abilities doing this that triggers you?

Rewrite that without accusing me of being "triggered" and I'll answer.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The contrast between Domination in D&D, and similar effects in Burning Wheel (the Force of Will spell) and Torchbearer 2e (the Wormtongue spell) is interesting.

The flavour of Force of Will in BW revised is pretty unambiguous - the caster imprints their will upon the mind of the victim
but the mechanical effect is not entirely clear. When it came up in my game, I ruled that the player had to rewrite one of their PC's Beliefs to reflect the will of the naga who had ensorcelled the PC. I felt pleased with my intuitions when, in Gold edition, the spell was edited to expressly state that it requires the victim to rewrite a Belief.

Wormtongue, in TB2e, is quite clear: "Using this spell, a magician can add a goal or belief to an adventurer, townsfolk or other denizen. Or they may change the instinct of an adventurer or monster. Lastly they can change the creed of an adventurer, but they can’t add one. The casting obstacle is the victim's Will, or Nature for denizens that don't have a Will stat, +1 (goal), +2 (belief), +3 (instinct) or +4 (creed).

Adding or changing a PC's Goal, Belief, Instinct or Creed doesn't require the player of that character to declare any particular action. But it does create incentives, because the award of Fate and Persona is based around how a player plays into or against these aspects of the character.

There is still the element of "but magic", in that changing these core aspects of a character is not something that results from normal interactions. But it doesn't dictate the player's action declarations.

I think that all sounds pretty nifty, actually.

Somewhat analogous to a D&D magic item forcing an alignment change, no?

 

[Aldarc]

Rewrite that without accusing me of being "triggered" and I'll answer.

No judgment when I use "trigger." I also talk about my own personal triggers with my partner, friends, and others.

historically my rough-and-tumble way of engaging keeps resulting in warnings from mods.

But turning the other cheek isn't really my thing.

Now considering what you said earlier in the thread above, maybe it's worth considering and self-reflecting whether you should change how you choose to engage others? Because this sounds like you are the sort of person who likes to pick unnecessary fights, and your tone can get pretty heated and hostile.

I asked you a genuine question about the explicit rules of the warlord overriding the general rules. You are welcome to answer it or not. Call it a "pet peeve" or something else. I don't particularly care what you call it. But I don't think that your hostility is sustainable, particularly if it "keeps resulting in warnings from mods."