NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

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.

So much this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Actually, my preferred mode of play would use mechanical processes to determine the availability of potential henchmen in a given area, based on a wide variety of factors. The results of those processes exist whether or not the PCs look for them, I just don't bother determining their results unless it becomes relevant to play.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I agree with all of this.

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

My take is that they were trying to nudge things in this direction with their vague definition of Insight. What they did NOT write was, "A successful Wisdom (Insight) check reveals whether or not a creature is lying."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.)

That's all fine and good, but that definitely is the players affecting the stakes via means their characters are not aware of.

 

[zakael19]

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.)

Flow is 100% more useful as a mental state category then “immersion” and is absolutely something I routinely find myself in playing games that facilitate a conversation that impels forward. When we stop to wait on a dice roll, it’s with anticipation to see what direction our shared imagination is going to dive off in next. The shared back and forth and dancing narrative line means that as the GM I’m hanging on every moment, because my mind is racing ahead on possibility branches of what would fictionally happen next to get something interesting to say ready.

It’s pretty cool. I’m definitely not “immersed” in a character though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Didn't you just a few posts ago imply this is impossible? Or is it that it you can only do it if the rules tell you what to feel? I'm so confused...

 

[zakael19]

I agree with all of this.

My take is that they were trying to nudge things in this direction with their vague definition of Insight. What they did NOT write was, "A successful Wisdom (Insight) check reveals whether or not a creature is lying."

see this wasn’t the tangent I was referencing in my post that got us down this thread at all. Regardless of if you run Insight as a binary lie detector skill, or a vibe based “what your character picks up from the scene,” what happens if in the OPs case he set the DC for “detecting falsity” high (Deception skill + CHA score = DC 19 or something), and then the player goes “hey this seems fishy, I’d like to try and see if I think he’s lying?”

Whst do we expect happens now if the player fails their roll? Do we now expect them to roleplay like they’re totally convinced? Do they get to go “hey guys something feels off here I just don’t know what?” How is their “agency” constrained by what is in essence a passive deception roll (which seems to be far more what the rules expect)?

 

[zakael19]

Didn't you just a few posts ago imply this is impossible? Or is it that it you can only do it if the rules tell you what to feel? I'm so confused...

Watching you respond for page after page that pemerton obviouslycant be doing what he says he’s doing and feeling what he says he’s feeling is pretty remarkable honestly.

 

[TwoSix]

Didn't you just a few posts ago imply this is impossible? Or is it that it you can only do it if the rules tell you what to feel? I'm so confused...

I don't think it's particularly complicated.

In our real lives, we don't have anything like "perfect agency". So much of what we feel and experience and do happens involuntarily.

Thus, asking for perfect agency over the character we're inhabiting in a TTRPG feels more alien than the system resolution assigning involuntary experiences to our characters.

It feels more like real life that my character (and my inhabitation of such) got angry just because rather than choosing to act out my character as being angry.

 

[pemerton]

Actually, my preferred mode of play would use mechanical processes to determine the availability of potential henchmen in a given area, based on a wide variety of factors. The results of those processes exist whether or not the PCs look for them, I just don't bother determining their results unless it becomes relevant to play.

The results of a process can't exist if the process hasn't been performed. I mean, that's like saying that the cookies I would have baked today exist - I just haven't bothered baking them yet!