NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Thomas Shey]

Obviously I don't know your position on it precisely, and I don't recall you as having been particularly an 'edition warrior'. 4e gave us this kind of an entirely generalized conflict resolution system with a decent amount of tactical depth, and it was absolutely blankety-blanked on. The message then was how dare the game try to structure such things. Yeah, various weak arguments were made about how it's no good, etc. but you can see the quality of the system in action in numerous 4e PbPs on this site.

Well, the thing to keep in mind is I'm not much of a D&D edition warrior, because I'm not that much a fan of D&D in general. I did play in a 4e campaign, and while I thought it was well designed it was a little too--I don't know, stylized in some ways? That's a complaint I've had with most versions of D&D including the three offshoots I'll play/run on request these days (PF2e, 13A and Shadow of the Weird Wizard). This includes the fact that while I appreciated the generalized conflict system, it was too generalized I for my taste for anything that was going to get used regularly; it was a good backup system to avoid doing a half dozen subsystems for things that come up regularly, but I still think it was underbaked for what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure there was one single overriding reason for the rejection, but clearly if the trad community that is most of EW wanted such parity, they could have it in a trice. There have been MANY incarnations, not just SCs. Heck, if you follow 5e's social encounter mechanics, straight from the DMG it's pretty well developed.

I doubt so, by the standards I'm working with, because there probably would be more complaints about it if it was.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But when the argument becomes that some players will made "bad" decisions, as defined not by the player but by others at the table, and so the answer is to keep them in line with rules...that I think is pointless. (And especially when the argument is that systems that do NOT define such rules...such as 5e...should be interpreted to do so.) Either just be at peace with the way other people play their own characters, or find new people to play with.

The problem is, you can apply this logic equally to ALL RULES. Clearly rules are doing other things besides enforcing some certain type of play! I'd venture that modern RPG developers like Baker have put forward powerful and coherent explications on this topic. Those are not prescriptive of specific approaches, but they do explain the function of rules and thus what they do and what forms will likely produce better results.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The problem is, you can apply this logic equally to ALL RULES. Clearly rules are doing other things besides enforcing some certain type of play! I'd venture that modern RPG developers like Baker have put forward powerful and coherent explications on this topic. Those are not prescriptive of specific approaches, but they do explain the function of rules and thus what they do and what forms will likely produce better results.

I don't think it is a problem. The same logic applies: most players are (I think?) perfectly happy to leave their weapon attacks to a die roll. And if somebody didn't like that, trying to force it on them won't work: they probably need to find a different game. (LARPing?).

Rules around internal mental states are the same but more complex to enforce, because uncooperative players have more tools to resist by deceiving other people at the table. (Dependent upon what those rules are, of course.)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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 don't think there are any things in my subjective mental state which I can assert as fact. I have encountered situations which - although superficially similar to prior experiences - have evoked quite different emotional reactions in me, and prompted quite different responses.

Most of my internal processes are quite opaque to me; my motivations nebulous. Striving to comprehend them is an ongoing journey.

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.

You are free to assert this, of course, and I think that arguing for your own agency in determining your character's emotional positioning is completely valid - I would, in fact, broadly support this; I think it is desirable in a role-playing game.

My issue is with how you arrived at this position; the arguments which you have articulated in order to justify it. In my experience, humans are simply not consistent or predictable in their reactions to stimuli.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I doubt so, by the standards I'm working with, because there probably would be more complaints about it if it was.

Meh, 5e's stance on rules defangs almost any such complaint. This is a big beef I have with 5e, it's spineless as a game design. I guess that serves WotC, nobody can really sustain a serious counterpoint to a shapeless blob of foo!

Still, social encounter mechanics are quite well-developed if you care to invoke them. I'm sure @clearstream can advocate for them better than I can, as I have zilch 5e GMing experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Meh, 5e's stance on rules defangs almost any such complaint. This is a big beef I have with 5e, it's spineless as a game design. I guess that serves WotC, nobody can really sustain a serious counterpoint to a shapeless blob of foo!

Still, social encounter mechanics are quite well-developed if you care to invoke them. I'm sure @clearstream can advocate for them better than I can, as I have zilch 5e GMing experience.

Well, to be clear, I'm talking through my hat since there's a core element of 5e design that put me off right out the gate to the point it destroyed any limited interest I'd otherwise have had in it (Advantage/Disadvantage).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And what makes you think that social encounters that incorporate mechanics aren’t similar?

They usually aren't Exalted 2e's social combat is the only instance of social mechanics nearing combat mechanics in complexity (not counting games which have super simple combat mechanics too) and it was a total disaster. Even if it wouldn't have other issues (and it did) such complexity simply is not suitable to be interlaced with a naturally flowing conversation.

Let’s keep it simple. Did you read about the example I shared from Stonetop… where the Heavy had to make a Wisdom roll to stop raging and therefore avoid doing something dangerous with his kid? Do you really not see how that die roll enhanced the situation?

What "tactics" did you use there? It just seems to me the dice dictated the character's behaviour in an important scene.

So you don’t need players for combat?

In combat they actually need to make a lot of choices. So they definitely are needed.

All your criticisms fall apart once we look to combat in RPGs.

No, not at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Narrativist - these are varieties of play in which game and RP combine within the context of genre and premise. Characters and story elements arise out of an intersectional process of some kind. No one participant is entirely authoritative over specific areas of play, typically. Most of these games are Story Now play featuring joint input into fiction, plot, and character, with GMs and players typically differentiated by tool set and focus. Unlike neo-trad there is no hard and fast character concept.

So Blades in the Dark qualifies as narrativist, I assume? I've played 24 sessions, and there has been exactly one instance where a die roll defined emotional state of the character. So maybe we are doing it wrong, but I don't think so. I don't believe the player relinquishing control of such things is required for narrativism.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That seems fine to me, because it still gives me the ultimate control over whether my PC does something. I don't have an issue with what you described there.

Thanks for overview of how it works.

Right, it has been said many times that things where there is some sort of incentive for certain sort of behaviour but the player still retains control are mostly fine. IIRC this thread started with people wanting to have NPCs in D&D 5e to be able to affect the PCs with their social skills same way than PCs can affect the NPCs, and that would not be such. It would be the dice deciding what the PC believes and how they feel. I strongly oppose taking the choice away from the player. If the mechanic does not do that, it is far more acceptable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

They usually aren't Exalted 2e's social combat is the only instance of social mechanics nearing combat mechanics in complexity (not counting games which have super simple combat mechanics too) and it was a total disaster. Even if it wouldn't have other issues (and it did) such complexity simply is not suitable to be interlaced with a naturally flowing conversation.



What "tactics" did you use there? It just seems to me the dice dictated the character's behaviour in an important scene.



In combat they actually need to make a lot of choices. So they definitely are needed.



No, not at all.

Well, it's deep night down under, else @pemerton would have already commented on this... BW and its descendants have quite well developed systems for this type of thing. TB2 has a very solid one that AFAIK is pretty close to the original, and has a couple specific variations to deal with different sorts of situations. While I don't entirely disagree that this kind of subsystem can be a little constraining you are never compelled to force it. If the fiction entirely subverts the game state, then the participants are free to do whatever.