NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

Is there a qualitative difference between spells which influence behaviour (charm, feeblemind, dominate, fear etc.) and skills which provoke an emotional and behavioural response from a PC?

Besides convention/tradition, and “it’s magic,” that is. It seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me.

I don't like either. But rules that tell me what my character thinks, feels wants etc feel like mind control to me. If it is actual mind control in the fiction too, then that's less of a problem!

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I don't like either. But rules that tell me what my character thinks, feels wants etc feel like mind control to me. If it is actual mind control in the fiction too, then that's less of a problem!

So “it’s magic?”

How about a dragon’s frightful presence?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So “it’s magic?”

How about a dragon’s frightful presence?

It is definitely some sort of magic. There are creatures bigger and scarier than dragons, and they don't have fear aura.

I really don't like how fear works in 5e though.

 

[Aldarc]

So “it’s magic?”

How about a dragon’s frightful presence?

Magic? Is that what they are calling "special pleading" these days?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is there a qualitative difference between spells which influence behaviour (charm, feeblemind, dominate, fear etc.) and skills which provoke an emotional and behavioural response from a PC?

Besides convention/tradition, and “it’s magic,” that is. It seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me.

Its a subject to which people's feelings about it are fundamentally arbitrary, but that doesn't make them any less real.

 

[pemerton]

Most of the generalised examples of rolling for control I've read here are pretty terrible.

My view is that it is a pretty weak form of argument, against a certain category of system, to only adduce terrible versions of that system. Doubly so to adduce terrible versions made up by a poster attempting to demonstrate how terrible such systems will tend to be!

I haven't found the actual RPGs that I've played, that include various sorts of social mechanics, terrible at all.

 

[pemerton]

I can attempt to cross a slippery log. The outcome is automatically in doubt unless I have some magic means to prevent slipping, so there is a roll involved. I KNOW how my PC will react to X situation. There is no doubt, so there is no roll.

They’re not different. They are things that are not entirely up to the person.

Just to flip this around: I know someone who would never slip on a slippery log. Her poise and balance are (by more standards) near-superhuman.

The idea that mental/emotional phenomena are somehow distinct in being knowable, or under a person's control, isn't really plausible in my view.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of this also comes down to attuning yourself to the rhythm of the game you're playing. If you're playing a game where the character's emotional or physical response may be dictated by the resolution method, then deciding your personal vision of the character's reaction is more important than the resolution means you're not embracing the game.

And if you can't embrace what a game does, than you probably shouldn't be playing it, right? Like I don't think anyone here thinks that @Crimson Longinus would be a good fit for the Stonetop game that @hawkeyefan is describing.

Just like I don't play first-person shooters because I'm terrible at them, some people shouldn't play certain TTRPGs.

As I posted upthread,

I'm not sure why the notion is so prevalent that all these people should be playing together. They are clearly looking for different things out of the game.

(Of course, some people are capable of changing their play goal to reflect the game they're playing. It seems to be a quirk of RPGing that it's not taken for granted that participants will do this.)

 

[thefutilist]

My view is that it is a pretty weak form of argument, against a certain category of system, to only adduce terrible versions of that system. Doubly so to adduce terrible versions made up by a poster attempting to demonstrate how terrible such systems will tend to be!

I haven't found the actual RPGs that I've played, that include various sorts of social mechanics, terrible at all.

To give an example of a mechanic that I think does a lot of heavy lifting.


The roll trigger is: When your characters authority is challenged you are overcome with indignant rage. Roll and consult the table below.

10: You manage to contain the rage

7-9: You have the rage under control for the moment but you must immediately leave or rage out.

6-: You rage out. You must express your displeasure in an act of violence.


Then the space we get for the player input is.

They decide if a roll is needed in the first place by judging the fiction/making a statement about their characters values.

The 7-9 gives a restrictive choice that allows you to express the character values within a narrow range

The 6 fail result allows the player to express the precise nature of the act of violence


It's been a productive thread for me because I'm still looking for ways to crack social conflict to my satisfaction and I've got some more tools now.

I'd like something along the lines of:

on a 7-9 you must give up your indignation or rage out

I need to ponder that a lot and play a lot more. Ironically that's way down the line because my next game does have a system where you roll to decide which way a characters priorities go, every-time there is a conflict. Then I want to contrast it with resolution by fiat. I think I'll prefer fiat but I want to get to the bottom of generic social resolution mechanics.

 

[Campbell]

I think whether or not mechanics that have I say in who your characters feels or thinks are going to feel natural to you is going to have a lot to do with how you start in the hobby. I personally cut my teeth on games like Vampire, Classic Deadlands and Legend of the Five Rings. The idea that a game wouldn't have something to say on who your character is honestly feels more foreign to me.

I'd also add that I think the do we need this mechanic? question is a whole lot less useful than does this mechanic provide something useful (for its intended audience)? Ultimately games are experiences we opt into because they provide us with something we would not otherwise get. One of the vectors for me is helping me get into a headspace that is foreign to me. Like playing a samurai who struggles to maintain face under the weight of mounting emotional tension or a vampire struggling against their beast. Can I attempt to roleplay those situations without the aid of a game to bring those things to life? Sure, but there is no particular comparative virtue to doing it unassisted versus with the aid of a game that helps me get to where I desire to go. The idea that say Strife in L5R Fifth Edition cheapens the experience rather than adds to it is not consistent with my experience. Rather what cheapened play from my perspective was the sort of reading the room I had to do while playing previous editions to determine how much samurai drama I could afford to inflict on the game without distracting from the scenario. Under Fifth Edition I felt like I could just play the game freely and have the game (and GM) help to bring my characters' struggles to life.