NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[deleuzian_kernel]

This is because you're still conceiving of this whole thing in terms of 'winning' story control. It isn't. It's about mutually finding out.

I'm not talking about story control at all. It's clear that Sir James and the squire have opposite desires in conflict and have sat down, to talk it out, and see how they are gonna move forward.

I never think of things as winning or losing. I need to know how conflicts resolve though? Not just shrug and stall if they do not. If we reconcile our interests that's fine by me. It sounds like your Monsterhearts character reconciled conflicting interests through internal struggle. I'm all cool with that.

But, when both sides are bringing out their best arguments against each other, and no one is ready to concede...the only way out is if we bring out mechanics that will let one side persuade (back to the threads topic) the other to change some aspect of their opposition and then check if, with that change, the interests can then be reconciled.

Like in the case of our little role-play, when Sir James said "Listen kid, you gotta stop it with Violette. She told me she is annoyed by your constant insistence to ride with her. I command you to cut it off."

I'm kind of appalled that, you know, you couldn't think of a universe in which maybe that actually does get the squire to wonder: "Is it true?" "Did she really say that?" "Is he lying to me?" "Do I even want to be his squire?".

We roll not because the randomization of whether or not squire doubts is necessarily better than deciding. We roll because if it does, we find out that the squire does actually doubt, and if it doesn't we find out that he is able to see through Sir James' trick.

What are we going to find out through pure role-play of our little personality sketch notes? That you wrote a sensible argument and I wrote a sensible argument and without possibility for a change the story is...over? Puff.

 

[thefutilist]

Unless I've completely misunderstood what @thefutilist is saying over the past few pages, @thefutilist doesn't agree with you in relation to NPCs.

@thefutilist, if I'm wrong and you do agree with @Crimson Longinus that NPCs are not to be played (by the GM, typically) with the same sort of authenticity/advocacy as PCs, then it turns out - in retrospect - that I've not followed your posts at all. (I'm reading your posts in light of other posts you've made in other threads about In A Wicked Age, Apocalypse World and Sorcerer.)

Yeah your right. I do play those NPC's in the same way I'd play a PC. IAWA is weird actually and really screws up this type of conversation but in Sorcerer absolutely.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Earlier in the thread I said the same thing he did. I control thousands of NPCs, the loss of agency by allowing deception and persuasion to work on NPCs is miniscule at best. If I allow social skills to work on PCs, the loss of agency to the player of a PC is complete. He has lost 100%.

They lost their agency in that one singular moment, not for the entirety of play, this feels misrepresentative of their loss of agency in the same way ‘my answers have a 100% chance of being right (10% of the time)’ misleads the chance of being right.

You could equally say the GM looses 100% of their agency in the moments every time one of their NPCs opinions is overturned.

 

[thefutilist]

I'm kind of appalled that, you know, you couldn't think of a universe in which maybe that actually does get the squire to wonder: "Is it true?" "Did she really say that?" "Is he lying to me?" "Do I even want to be his squire?".

I was latching onto the command thing rather than the princess is irritated thing. If we were playing together I would have gone meta straight away to get clarification, in fact if we were using a basic conflict resolution system with dice (say Sorcerer), I'd do the same thing.

I think this may be a framing issue.

Give me a bit and I'll try and dig out some examples of what I mean

 

[Maxperson]

My point is that not only you can never achieve a perfect interpretation of a character—because who could even determine what that is? But more importantly, even when playing a character to the best of your ability, you can’t simultaneously be invested in both getting it right and advocating for their outcomes. This becomes especially problematic when the desired outcome for the other player depends on figuring out the very thing you’re supposed to get right in order to achieve what they want. It’s circular.

I think we have a philosophical difference due to our respective playstyles. I can in fact be simultaneously invested in getting it right and advocating for the outcome, because I advocate for the outcome that gets it right. They are one and the same for me. Whether that outcome is beneficial to my PC, harmful to my PC, or indifferent to my PC, as long as it is the one I believe to be right one, I'm happy with my roleplay.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not talking about story control at all. It's clear that Sir James and the squire have opposite desires in conflict and have sat down, to talk it out, and see how they are gonna move forward.

I rather think that they have the same desire, which is where the conflict comes from. Only one can win Lady Violette's hand.

I never think of things as winning or losing. I need to know how conflicts resolve though? Not just shrug and stall if they do not. If we reconcile our interests that's fine by me. It sounds like your Monsterhearts character reconciled conflicting interests through internal struggle. I'm all cool with that.

But, when both sides are bringing out their best arguments against each other, and no one is ready to concede...the only way out is if we bring out mechanics that will let one side persuade (back to the threads topic) the other to change some aspect of their opposition and then check if, with that change, the interests can then be reconciled.

Why? Why not just proceed with neither one having conceded? It might end with them coming to blows. Breaking up the friendship. Or remaining friends. Or something else.

I disagree that the only way out is to bring in mechanics to force a PC to be persuaded.

Like in the case of our little role-play, when Sir James said "Listen kid, you gotta stop it with Violette. She told me she is annoyed by your constant insistence to ride with her. I command you to cut it off."

I'm kind of appalled that, you know, you couldn't think of a universe in which maybe that actually does get the squire to wonder: "Is it true?" "Did she really say that?" "Is he lying to me?" "Do I even want to be his squire?".

Were I playing the squire, I could envision him wondering if she said that or if he was lying. And I can also envision the lack of concession by me until I can ask Violette is she did in fact say that.

I could also envision a universe in which the squire believes or doesn't believe the knight, but still concedes because his superior ordered him to stop and he wants to be a knight someday.

Without knowing far more about my character and my relationship with Sir James, I can't tell you which way I would go.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Why? Why not just proceed with neither one having conceded? It might end with them coming to blows. Breaking up the friendship. Or remaining friends. Or something else.

I disagree that the only way out is to bring in mechanics to force a PC to be persuaded.

Yes, I agree with you, it's not the only way and escalating to coming to blows is totally a an acceptable development. My example had an unnamed implication that we would stay on the same arena of conflict we started with, but we clearly need not. I think the reason I did not include it is because I definitely know that you or the other posters would not push me back on resolving how THAT ONE goes with dice. Or are we gonna keep knifing each other forever?

You think I'm saying that we cannot proceed with neither having conceded the verbal argument. That is, categorically, not what I mean. I'm saying that we need to resolve the conflict, in whichever way it can be resolved, before we proceed.

Resolve the conflict might also be: we both let it go for now. But that kind of means the Sir James is the one who conceded. After all, he is the one who summoned the squire and the one with the hierarchy. If we can't agree and each one walks their way, Sir James kinda blew his chance.

Were I playing the squire, I could envision him wondering if she said that or if he was lying. And I can also envision the lack of concession by me until I can ask Violette is she did in fact say that.

I could also envision a universe in which the squire believes or doesn't believe the knight, but still concedes because his superior ordered him to stop and he wants to be a knight someday.

Without knowing far more about my character and my relationship with Sir James, I can't tell you which way I would go.

Sure! And I invite all of these as healthy productive alternatives. Why would you think I wouldn't?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The phrase "Charisma check" comes up several times on pages 178-179 of the 2014 PHB in the section on Ability Checks for Charisma. I can already tell you that it's not exclusive to these pages. The fact that the game prefers using Charisma (Persuasion) check instead of Persuasion check, IMHO, is needlessly splitting hairs.

Is it? I mean, personally I agree it all gets a bit much, but AFAIK (and I'm not a big expert, but I have played a good bit of 5e) there is no tight association of skills with abilities. Any time you specify a skill check, you MUST perforce identify which ability modifier will apply to that specific check, and this is a GM decision. So, it would follow that one must use the terminology Charisma (Persuasion) or something similar, granting that if the ability score is not explicitly stated you'd assume the most natural one.

Contrast this with 4e, in which the skills are wedded explicitly to specific ability scores. Every Athletics check uses the character's STR modifier, but in 5e it could use CON, DEX, INT, pretty much anything. In the end I don't think it adds a ton of value, but that's still how it works by RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I agree with you, it's not the only way and escalating to coming to blows is totally a an acceptable development. My example had an unnamed implication that we would stay on the same arena of conflict we started with, but we clearly need not. I think the reason I did not include it is because I definitely know that you or the other posters would not push me back on resolving how THAT ONE goes with dice. Or are we gonna keep knifing each other forever?

Depends on if one of us concedes or not.

In all seriousness, I also said earlier in the thread that I'm not against resolution mechanics for situations where I am not positive of the outcome, and that situations where I am 100% certain are fairly uncommon.

If there were resolution mechanics that allowed me to override an outcome or just state the outcome without a roll, perhaps giving the DM some sort of bonus to use against us, I wouldn't have an issue with that system.

You think I'm saying that we cannot proceed with neither having conceded the verbal argument. That is, categorically, not what I mean. I'm saying that we need to resolve the conflict, in whichever way it can be resolved, before we proceed. Resolve the conflict might be: we both let it go for now. But that kind of means the Sir James is the one who conceded. After all, he is the one who summoned the squire and the one with the hierarchy. If we can't agree and each one walks their way, Sir James kinda blew his chance.

I think both blew their chances. Sir James blew his chance to get rid of a rival, and myself(as the squire) blew my chance of ever achieving knighthood. Disobeying your knight is a bit of a betrayal and I'd probably be released from service with a black mark.

I'm a big fan of consequences for actions. They open up so many extra avenues of roleplay.

Sure! And I invite all of these as healthy productive alternatives. Why would you think I wouldn't?

I don't like to try and assume what people mean in a post. Often I get it wrong, just as often people who assume about me get it wrong, and it's frustrating when they do. Accordingly, I tend to go with what was written and try not to interpret what they might or might not have meant.

Your clarification above about what you meant was good and helps me to understand.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, I agree with you, it's not the only way and escalating to coming to blows is totally a an acceptable development. My example had an unnamed implication that we would stay on the same arena of conflict we started with, but we clearly need not. I think the reason I did not include it is because I definitely know that you or the other posters would not push me back on resolving how THAT ONE goes with dice. Or are we gonna keep knifing each other forever?

You think I'm saying that we cannot proceed with neither having conceded the verbal argument. That is, categorically, not what I mean. I'm saying that we need to resolve the conflict, in whichever way it can be resolved, before we proceed.

Resolve the conflict might also be: we both let it go for now. But that kind of means the Sir James is the one who conceded. After all, he is the one who summoned the squire and the one with the hierarchy. If we can't agree and each one walks their way, Sir James kinda blew his chance.

So how do you envision this "not conceding" thus the game stalling actually occurring? Like the players just keep talking and talking, hour after hour, and it just keeps going on and on like this thread? Because that just doesn't happen. To me it seems that you're produced this weird imaginary problem so that you can offer solutions for it, but the problem is not real, so the solutions are not needed either.

Not saying that you cannot use the rules to resolve such things if you want, but I don't think this here is a particularly believable or compelling reason for it.