NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[pemerton]

I mean, I can just as easily be immersed in a novel, or movie, or TV show, and I have zero authorial agency there.

That's why I don't play TTRPGs to be immersed

Well, that sort of immersion, in the context of a RPG, would mean being absorbed by the GM's narration of events. That's the opposite of what I am looking for in RPGing, either as GM or as player.

I play them to exercise agency over a defined rule space while also getting to flex some thespian/performative desires.

This is closer to my own preferences. But I think I have less inherent thespianism, and more of a desire to feel what my character feels, and be moved as they are moved - the "inhabitation" I keep rabbiting on about.

 

[pemerton]

PC is walking down dark alley, on way to fun night in tavern. They turn corner, come across person who points knife and threatens harm to PC if valuables are not received.

How is the PC setting the stakes here?

How did the GM come to narrate "a person points a knife at you, threatening you if you don't hand over your valuables"?

As in, what is the process of play that leads to the GM narrating that.

As I posted, different RPGs have different processes of play here. In TB2e, this is the sort of thing that would be narrated as a twist. The twist, in turn, will build on the unfolding fiction, including whatever action the player declared that precipitated the failed test. And in all cases the GM will be having regard to a PC's player-authored Belief, Goal, Instinct and (if the player has one) Creed.

This is how the player sets the stakes. (I didn't say anything about PC's setting stakes. Stakes is a game-play concept, not an in-fiction concept.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

As per my post that you replied to, the goal is to deceive their interlocutor.

Just for the fun of it?

When people try to deceive, isn't it because they have a goal beyond simply being believed?

....and if not, then I guess the way I should respond to a successful Insight roll is to "reveal their true intentions" by saying: "He wants you to believe him."

 

[Micah Sweet]

How did the GM come to narrate "a person points a knife at you, threatening you if you don't hand over your valuables"?

As in, what is the process of play that leads to the GM narrating that.

As I posted, different RPGs have different processes of play here. In TB2e, this is the sort of thing that would be narrated as a twist.

In my game, it's because the DM decided, via fiat or random roll, either beforehand or in the moment (that would definitely be a roll), that a threatening NPC was present in that area. The Player had nothing to do with that, they just decided to walk down that alley. The two events happen independently because that's the way it works in real life. People don't get to decide where other people are.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Well, it's a little boring to have such things just be a binary based on a single die roll. Discourages you from having any NPC ever lie if it's that easy to call them out. Same as dealing with a PC with crazy high passive Perception (and there's always one): now you essentially can't hide stuff because there's virtually no chance it won't be found. Both things harm realism IMO.

High insight rolls reveal hints observed about mistruths. The lie/s could be singular, many, exaggerations or omissions. They may also be emotions disguised. Colour (description) could be added to flesh out of a high Insight roll, perhaps you notice the parched lips of the speaker and thus you offer them water - whether you use the water threaten, tempt or actually as a act of kindness to entice the truth.
Insight may offer than just, this is lie - it may reveal a flaw, ideal or bond you can leverage.

High perception may not necessarily reveal the trap, but clues of a trap, additional colour (description) which may assist with a puzzle, sense of being-watched, it could even be used as a flaw (paranoia), a sense that something is off with this reality - that requires further investigation.

What I mean to say is, my experience has shown that the binary use of skills creates less excitement and doesn't facilitate for a greater immersive experience IMO. I do not claim to do the above with every roll, maybe not even 50%, I wish I did more, but is it certainly great when I do remember and am able to do it successfully.

It would be nice if WotC caught up to speed with things like this...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yea, it's exactly like that. (The words on the page and the act of turning the pages all falling away is one I'm deeply familiar with.) And, comparatively, if I'm really in an immersed flow state, I can make a roll during a game and take in the result and use it without losing my sense of "being in character." It's a more challenging mental state to get to, for me, than acting as the character with no mechanics, but it feels more intense and worthwhile during play. (Again, IMX.)

I find that simple mechanics such as D&D style skill checks are not particularly disruptive, if their outcomes can be smoothly folded into the fiction, but more complex ones where one needs to make several mechanical decisions that force us to pay more attention to the rules can be. (Like I don't think D&D's combat rules are particularly immersive.)

 

[pemerton]

In my game, it's because the DM decided, via fiat or random roll, either beforehand or in the moment (that would definitely be a roll), that a threatening NPC was present in that area. The Player had nothing to do with that, they just decided to walk down that alley. The two events happen independently because that's the way it works in real life. People don't get to decide where other people are.

The GM decided where the NPC is! Because it's all a fiction, and so has to be authored via some process.

Even in your game - assuming you really are an OSR enthusiast! - permits the players to make decisions that determine what NPCs are present in the gameworld. For instance, by deciding to try and recruit henchmen, the players can prompt and even oblige the GM to narrate the presence of certain sorts of NPCs who, otherwise, would never have been thought about, let alone narrated, by anyone at the table.

In any event, I didn't say that the player decides where the NPC is. Rather, they declare actions that, in turn and in accordance with the game's processes of play, prompt or even oblige the GM to narrate something, such as the assailant threatening the PC with a knife.

I would also add - if one assumes that in all RPGs the GM is free to decide by fiat and/or random roll that some conflict with some stakes occurs, then what I am posing about TB2e will make no sense. As I've posted upthread, one needs to abandon such a (false) assumption to understand the game play that I am describing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

High insight rolls reveal hints observed about mistruths. The lie/s could be singular, many, exaggerations or omissions. They may also be emotions disguised. Colour (description) could be added to flesh out of a high Insight roll, perhaps you notice the parched lips of the speaker and thus you offer them water - whether you use the water threaten, tempt or actually as a act of kindness to entice the truth.
Insight may offer than just, this is lie - it may reveal a flaw, ideal or bond you can leverage.

High perception may not necessarily reveal the trap, but clues of a trap, additional colour (description) which may assist with a puzzle, sense of being-watched, it could even be used as a flaw (paranoia), a sense that something is off with this reality - that requires further investigation.

What I mean to say is, my experience has shown that the binary use of skills creates less excitement and doesn't facilitate for a greater immersive experience IMO. I do not claim to do the above with every roll, maybe not even 50%, I wish I did more, but is it certainly great when I do remember and am able to do it successfully.

The issue is getting the players to accept not getting a straight answer from a successful attribute roll when they've been trained to expect one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I generally prefer and think about myself in terms of game immersion. Am I immersed in the play of the game? Because I think that immersion in and out of the character can be incredibly fluid and it's not necessarily consistent with the game processes or mechanics being performed. For example, my character immersion in one time may be broken as easily as the GM asking for a d20 roll without necessarily breaking my game immersion. However in another time that won't be the case. My character immersion may even be broken by how another immersed player roleplays their character!

I've noted in the past that I actually found it far easier to play in immersive mode (which I don't insist on; I'm perfectly able to enjoy a game where I'm playing in authorial mode instead) back when I was MUSHing and was only interacting with text than I do when I'm having to interact with the voices and appearances of players. Yet that clearly doesn't bother most people who want that experience at all.

 

[TwoSix]

I find that simple mechanics such as D&D style skill checks are not particularly disruptive, if their outcomes can be smoothly folded into the fiction, but more complex ones where one needs to make several mechanical decisions that force us to pay more attention to the rules can be. (Like I don't think D&D's combat rules are particularly immersive.)

Honestly, I tend to feel much more immersed during combat, but that's probably a combination of the immediate stakes AND the fact I've internalized so much of the combat ruleset.