NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

It's not called self-control for nothing.

And every character you've ever played had perfect self-control? Never takes an action that isn't exactly what they intend to do at the time? That doesn't seem very realistic to me.

 

[Campbell]

To continue my thought from my previous post, the basic structure of RPGs is that the GM describes the situations and the player tells how their character reacts to it and what they do. So here the situation is that a bear attacks you. And next it would be the player's turn to decide what they do about it... except it is suggested that instead the player doesn't get to decide that and we randomise it instead. At this point I would just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave, as I am obviously not needed for running this character.

That's the basic structure of some RPGs. There is no given set of play procedures that is fundamental to all roleplaying games.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this makes a bold assertion about the ontology of consciousness which cannot be taken as given, and makes a shaky foundation for your argument.

I think, in the real world, the most that any of us can do is say "If I'm confronted with situation X, I'd like to think that my response would be Y." We don't actually know how we'll react until we encounter the situation. This is especially true of fight-or-flight situations.

Not really. There are things that I know can never anger me, or cause me worry/anxiety. Not everything, but a lot of things. I know this as fact. I've been through those situations before and I didn't even have to bring self-control into it, because those things just didn't even begin to bother me.

When I make a character, I also know some things that can't anger, scare, worry, etc. that PC. Not everything, but some things. An emotional resolution system robs me of that choice for my PC. If I made a PC who is unflappable in the face of X, as soon as X came up I would have to roll and there's a good chance he will be flapping in direct contradiction to his character.

A resolution system that can cause my PC to act that badly out of character is a bad one in my opinion. I wouldn't mind there being a resolution system for a game I play in so long as there is an override that I can use to just decide auto success or failure.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Physical =/= mental. Mental is purely internal to the PC. Physical almost always involves external aspects which are generally beyond PC control.

I believe you meant emotional rather than mental.
A DM can ask you to solve a puzzle or recall something and have you roll INT checks.
Insight is a mental skill.

Fireball is external and generally beyond PC control and I the player generally cannot know for certain if he would succeed, fail or the outcome is in doubt. Anger is entirely internal and I the player generally know for certain if the PC would succeed, fail, or the outcome is in doubt.

So, you believe physical and mental (as defined above by me) challenges are roleplaying and a game. Emotional challenges are roleplaying solely.
How you do you account for the Madness and Sanity mechanic.

Taunts are not a threat. Nor can certain things ever anger me no matter who says it or how hard they try. For those things there could not possibly be any roll to anger me. Why should my PC be any different?

Because it is a game with many unknowns.
Putting aside sensitivities, one could codify emotional conditions.

In fact, it is very likely a particular PC is going to attempt a Persuasion check at the 4th Council (ToD campaign) to try sway certain leaders to commit to the fight against Tiamat, and he will likely be reminded, rather harshly, by critics how he failed his party (he is the last remaining OG of the party, others are new) and arguing as to why should the Factions put their trust in him when he cannot keep those closest to him safe. i.e. they will goad him.

To let the player decide without any input from the game seems meh. Why would you let a player get away with roleplaying that nothing happens to him emotionally EVER. i.e. Always immune.

So this is how I envision it:
Stakes will likely be set and I would lean heavily on his bonds* (related to the party and a certain OG PC).

PC will make an impassioned plea for commitment by the Councillors.
NPC councillor will antagonise him.
PC will need to make a WIS (willpower) saving throw.
- Success he holds the line and makes a straight Persuasion check gaining a +1 modifier with 2 councillors on the scoresheet, with an additional councillor affected for every 5 above the DC needed.
- Failure, frustration gets the better of him and hurts his position, i.e. Persuasion at Disadvantage, but gains a +1 modifier with one councillor on the scoresheet.
- Critical Failure (Failure by 5+), character must make a Sanity save.
(a) Success - he holds back an angry rant or tears (player chooses). No modifiers gained on scoresheet.
(b) Failure - his emotion (player chooses) takes hold and sees him unable to converse momentarily like the Madness condition for mundane effects and is penalised a -1 modifier with 2 councillors on the score sheet).

As DM I can offer the player 1XP to impose a disadvantage on 1 check or save in the scene by leaning into one of the character's bonds. Player may decline.
The player can offer a disadvantage on one of the rolls for 1XP by leaning into an appropriate TIBF. DM must accept.


*Actual character bonds
- Keep the party together
- Protect Aidan (OG party member, now NPC and descending on his ace into Avernus (BG: DiA campaign)).

EDITs: For clarity

 

[Maxperson]

And every character you've ever played had perfect self-control?

Nope. Not a one. But I get to decide which things won't ever bother him, because I know the character. Which things have a chance to bother or not bother him. And which things will bother him without a roll, because I know the character.

A random resolution system prevents me from making characters with a personality, because as soon as I do, the system is in serious danger of forcing the PC to act so badly out of character that the character and game will be ruined for me.

Never takes an action that isn't exactly what they intend to do at the time? That doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Excellent! Then it's probably a good thing that I make realistic characters.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Then it's probably a good thing that I make realistic characters.

Is it your opinion that every player behaves in this manner? If not, how do reconcile that no mechanic for emotion is necessary for the entire game only because you personally roleplay realistic characters?

 

[Bill Zebub]

And every character you've ever played had perfect self-control? Never takes an action that isn't exactly what they intend to do at the time? That doesn't seem very realistic to me.

I don't know exactly what claim you are responding to, but from my point of view it's not that my character is in perfect control all the time, but that I am. So I might (and do!) choose to play my character making irrational, out-of-control decisions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know exactly what claim you are responding to, but from my point of view it's not that my character is in perfect control all the time, but that I am. So I might (and do!) choose to play my character making irrational, out-of-control decisions.

But they're not really irrational or out of control decisions if you're choosing to make them, right? Rather the opposite.

 

[AnotherGuy]

To put it another way, the no-myth or players-are-co-authors crowd often is attacked because players without checks and balances would likely abuse their authorship powers and mitigate consequences and yet here we have people on the opposite side telling us that players PERFECTLY roleplay all emotional conditions and that no mechanics are necessary.

 

[Maxperson]

To continue my thought from my previous post, the basic structure of RPGs is that the GM describes the situations and the player tells how their character reacts to it and what they do. So here the situation is that a bear attacks you. And next it would be the player's turn to decide what they do about it... except it is suggested that instead the player doesn't get to decide that and we randomise it instead. At this point I would just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave, as I am obviously not needed for running this character.

Interestingly enough, I have had a bear encounter and weirdly it was at Yellowstone! Though it was with a black bear and not a grizzly.

I was with a tour bus and the tour guide drove up to a long line of cars on both sides of the road. She said that whenever we see this that there is some sort of wildlife to be seen, so she pulled the bus over and we all got out. I was at the front of bus and across the street a park ranger was standing in the road. A few moments later a black bear came walking down the road towards us. When it got to the ranger it decided to stop walking down the road and turned towards me. That bear passed so close to me that I could have(but didn't) stupidly reached out and touched it. As it went by it swung its head towards me briefly, and then swung it back forward as if to say, "Huh! A human." and then it kept walking into the forest and vanished from sight.

At no point was I even concerned, let alone afraid. I remember being super upset with myself for filling up the camera's memory card with silly pictures of things like an Osprey flying low over a river as it fished, a wolf pack lounging on the other side of said river, and a grizzly bear and her cubs off in a field so distant that to the naked eye they were pretty much just two brown dots and a bigger brown blob. Now, had I been alone in the woods and that black bear been angry, it would have been a different matter, but I still don't know how afraid I would have been.