NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

No, there still is a default associated ability score. I think using different one is a optional rule or something. So unless otherwise specified, persuasion check is just a shorter way to say charisma + persuasion check.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

@Crimson Longinus

Please review the thread. It is clearly not my position that stalling is a thing that happens when we find ourselves "not conceding" after a while. That's what @thefutilist said and what I keep referencing.

What I think happens is what I laid out here: NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency.

Either someone or multiple people compromise their alleged "integrity" over a character and then retrofit and over-intellectualize their character's psychology to suit their practical desires, or they just throw their hands up, shrug and give up, and then justify in their internal logic why it made sense that they gave up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

OK, lets simplify it. You want the party to march left down the corridor, and I want it to march right. SOMEONE is going to get their way, because we need to know in order to proceed. Left is a pit trap, right is a green slime, the GM needs to know, right or left. Maybe if you argue long enough a wandering monster will happen by and mercifully eliminate one of the parties to the debate, oops, we're going left!

Sure, the outcome could be that nothing is decided, we go some other different way, make camp, whatever. Whether you call the question 'resolved' at that point or not is kind of a matter of taste.

Same with the knight/squire example, maybe the squire just nods vaguely and ignores the knight. Maybe he just gets sneakier from now on. Maybe a lot of things. Play to Find Out, and how you find out is, you rolls you some dice, makes some moves, and each participant says what the rules and principles provide, modulus preference and imagination.

I really do not get all this grousing about just playing the game as a game and RPing what happens. You all make it like you have some big mission to play a certain guy exactly a certain way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, there still is a default associated ability score. I think using different one is a optional rule or something. So unless otherwise specified, persuasion check is just a shorter way to say charisma + persuasion check.

It's rather unclear actually. The PHB first lists skills associated with each ability, THEN it talks about skills in a way that seems to indicate that the association is merely decided by the GM. THEN it introduces "skills with different abilities" as if the last paragraph didn't exist. Nor is "skills with different abilities" called out as an optional rule, particularly, it is just called a 'variant' and the text seems to assume this is simply a normal tool that the GM has available to them.

There are other parts of the rules where it is even less clear. Sometimes these 'variants' are called out. I agree that if you don't say different, Athletics will normally modify STR checks, but given that all checks are ABILITY checks, there's no such thing as a 'skill check' in 5e, it actually wouldn't make sense not to be able to use different ability scores.

This is where 4e REALLY IS different, because it calls its 'knacks' skills, but they aren't really. They're more like problem-solving strategies, and in 4e you DO make 'Athletics Checks' and they are always modified by STR because that's what mastery of athletics involves, Strong people with the correct training use that problem solving strategy.

OTOH I personally treat 5e skills as 4e skills, but I don't even pretend I would play 5e like it was intended.

 

[thefutilist]

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.

I keep thinking of ways to try and explain my position and I've come up with an extreme one that kind of hits the nail on the head.

I don't have in character arguments. There are conflicts of interest but not arguments.

We're obviously using the resolution systems to determine fundamentally different things.

(and this probably holds true if we were using a fortune system. The way I use fortune is replaceable with fiat so I'd still have the same problems you say I'm currently having)

Note the bit of the roleplay you were interested in. Whether Violette's disinterest was true or not, whether the squire could see through the trick. Note the part that I was interested in.

Are you beginning to see it, am I making sense?

EDIT: My reply to Pemerton below is me trying to explain it in a different way but I'm using jargon.

 

[thefutilist]

This is an issue of game design, isn't it?

I mean, we could approach combat the same way - the story ends with A and B forever locked in combat, neither able to best the other. But no RPG that I can think of, off the top of my head, takes this approach - all of them treat combat as a site of some sort of finality in resolution.

I've come up with a jargon version of trying to explain this.


People point to differences between physical and mental stuff and tend to be ok with physical resolution and not with mental.

I think that's because the division of authorities they use tends to be different (maybe, depends on specifics). It's not the nature of the contest, physical v mental but the structure.


A) One type of conflict can progress just by each person utilising what they have authority over.

B) One type of conflict needs someone to be given outcome authority.


Technically you could make all resolution the A type if you distributed the authorities in a way that allowed it, or the inverse.

There's probably a whole lot of aesthetic stuff intertwined with this though. 15 years ago I was in a game where my character was trying to sway a group of people and the GM resolved it by fiat (I did not sway them). I was really annoyed at the time and I'm trying to think if I'd be annoyed now, I don't think so but then I also wouldn't be playing that game with those people so I think some my annoyance came from shared agenda issues.

 

[pemerton]

A) One type of conflict can progress just by each person utilising what they have authority over.

So combat can be Type A - because each person can exercise authority over the nature of their blow and whether or not they dodge. If someone describes a mighty blow by their character against another, the player/controller of that other character might think *there's no way <this character> could avoid that - and so the combat progresses. The player of <this character> concedes their defeat.

But also, "can" does not imply "will". In the social case, what if each player/controller- just using their authority over their character's disposition and immediate actions - decides to dig in? In real life, there are all sorts of things that stop someone digging in, or encourage it - everything from getting hungry to being tired to being really ticked off. But in the play of the RPG, these considerations don't normally come to bear - eg the player whose PC is getting hungry needn't get hungry themself (assuming there is food ready to hand).

In practice, I tend to agree with @andreszarta about what it is that typically brings things to a close:

When the PC works hard for it, or you are bored and you don't see a way out, you give up on what the NPC wants and justify in its internal logic, retroactively, why they gave up.

When you are not ready to budge and the outcome matters to you as much as to your NPCs, you are willing to compromise on "fairness" and be a bit more liberal in your interpretation of what's internally logical for that character.

I think this sort of account of what is happening also - often, at least - generalises to PC vs PC rather than PC vs NPC. One of the players compromises or folds not because that is what a true conception of their PC demands, but because of the passage of time, or the fact that they are bored, or that they can see that the other player is more invested, etc.

In the BW Adventure Burner (p 316), Luke Crane observes the following about the Duel of Wits:

Presenting a fair system for resolving arguments between players has had a few knock-on effects. It's sped up our games immensely. No more hours or arguments that last until someone gives up due to exhaustion. Now we can just disagree and, if we disagree forcefully enough, jump into a Duel of Wits to resolve it. And this speedy resolution has, in turn, created a strange effect. We disagree more now. Not just because we've old and curmudgeonly, but because we know we can have productive disagreements now. We can argue, cajole and plead and it'll get resolved in a satisfying manner so we can move on and keep playing.​

To me, at least, this makes straightforward sense.

 

[pemerton]

"Can I roll a big number on the dice" is not a compelling character moment.

I don't think this claim is true, actually - assuming it's meant to be a general proposition. (Of course we can all imagine circumstances in which "can I roll a big number" is not a compelling character moment - eg playing a 15th level AD&D PC who finds themself having to roll a saving throw against a 5d6 fireball. In most cases, that will be a merely bookkeeping moment.)

I mean, suppose that my character is supposed to be the toughest guy around. Perhaps I (as my character) boast and swagger. Perhaps I am implacable. However I portray it, my portrayal conveys not to be messed with.

And then a NPC (or even another PC) messes with me. And so the question arises, in play, am I really so tough, so implacable, so not to be messed with? Or is it just an empty claim?

In every RPG that I can think of, this physical contest will be resolved via mechanics, not simply via talking it out. It may end up turning on whether a single roll is high or low. That wouldn't stop it being a compelling character moment.

Here's another example, one I already posted upthread I think, from my own BW play:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

<snip>

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.

As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").

That was a compelling character moment. Thurgon fully committed - including paying his Will to Live - and his faith was rewarded.

Had it gone the other way, the effects on Thurgon and on Aramina would have obviously been very different, and as characters they would have developed in quite different ways.

Obviously it would be possible to have a system in which the prayer is resolved by the player (as the PC) and the GM (as the deity) debating the PC's faith, the appropriateness of granting the prayer, etc. I can't see how that would make for a more compelling moment of play than what actually happened at my table.

And here's another series of example, less high stakes but still pretty intense at the time:

Thoth successfully performed Taxidermy - against Ob 5 - to preserve the corpse, with a roll good enough to carry over +1D advantage to the Death Art test but did not what to attempt the Ob 7 Death Art (with his Death Art 5) until he could be boosted by Blood Magic. And so he sent Aedhros out to find a victim

Aedhros had helped collect the corpse, and also helped with the Taxidermy (using his skill with Heart-seeker), but was unable to help with the Death Art. He was reasonably happy to now leave the workshop; and was no stranger to stealthy kidnappings in the dark. I told my friend (now GMing) that I wanted to use Stealthy, Inconspicuous and Knives to spring upon someone and force them, at knife point, to come with me to the workshop. He called for a linked test first, on Inconspicuous with Stealth FoRKed in. This succeeded, and Aedhros found a suitable place outside a house of ill-repute, ready to kidnap a lady of the night. When a victim appeared, Aedhros tried to force a Steel test (I think - my memory is a bit hazy) but whatever it was, it failed, and the intended victim went screaming into the night. Now there is word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant.

Aedhros's Beliefs are I will avenge the death of my spouse!, Thurandril will admit that I am right! and I will free Alicia and myself from the curse of Thoth!; and his Instincts are Never use Song of Soothing unless compelled to, Always repay hurt with hurt, and When my mind is elsewhere, quietly sing the elven lays. Having failed at the most basic task, and not knowing how to return to Thoth empty-handed, Aedhros wandered away from the docks, up into the wealthier parts of the city, to the home of the Elven Ambassador. As he sang the Elven lays to himself, I asked the GM for a test on Sing, to serve as a linked test to help in my next test to resist Thoth's bullying and depravity. The GM set my Spite of 5 as the obstacle, and I failed - a spend of a fate point only got me to 4 successes on 4 dice.

My singing attracted the attention of a guard, who had heard the word on the street, and didn't like the look of this rag-clothed Dark Elf. Aedhros has Circles 3 and a +1 reputation with the Etharchs, and so I rolled my 4 dice to see if an Etharch (whether Thurandril or one of his underlings or associates) would turn up here and now to tell the guards that I am right and they should not arrest me. But the test failed, and the only person to turn up was another guard to join the first in bundling me off. So I had to resort to the more mundane method of offering them 1D of loot to leave me alone. The GM accepted this, no test required.

Then, repaying hurt with hurt, Aedhros followed one of the guards - George, as we later learned he was called - who also happened to be the one with the loot. Aedhros ambushed him from the darkness, and took him at knife point back to the workshop, where Thoth subject him to the necessary "treatment"

Each of the rolls to kidnap someone, to sing, to meet an Etharch, and to kidnap George, was (for me, at least) a compelling character moment. The signing and the Circles both had the possibility of turning Aedhros away from his sordid world of service to a necromancer. But the final, successful kidnapping instead enmeshed him further into that world.

 

[pemerton]

this is not roleplaying, this is inventing some narrative around the outcome given by the dice after the fact.

<snip>

That's terrible though and defeats the whole point of playing the game in the first place. I would do this except perhaps for expediency for super trivial things like haggling with a merchant for a small sum. (But come think of it, we usually just roleplay that too.)

From Gygax's DMG (pp 80-1):

Someone once sharply criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you accept fire-breathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not? The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes - or fails to escape - the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.​

Clearly Gygax doesn't agree that fortune in the middle - that is, establishing a result via a roll (that appropriately reflects the fiction) and then narrating the details in response (within whatever appropriate parameters are set by the fiction and the resolution process) - is not roleplaying.

And as far as resolving haggling via a simple die roll, this is a feature of Classic Traveller (1977) - as a component of the speculative trade rules found in Book 2 - and of Rolemaster (198x - I'm not sure what is the earliest date of publication of the commerce rules found in Character Law and Campaign Law).

To me, it seems clear that the various approaches that @andreszarta has identified are hardly foreign to the hobby, or recent innovations. They are as old as the hobby itself.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

OK, lets simplify it. You want the party to march left down the corridor, and I want it to march right. SOMEONE is going to get their way, because we need to know in order to proceed. Left is a pit trap, right is a green slime, the GM needs to know, right or left. Maybe if you argue long enough a wandering monster will happen by and mercifully eliminate one of the parties to the debate, oops, we're going left!

Sure, the outcome could be that nothing is decided, we go some other different way, make camp, whatever. Whether you call the question 'resolved' at that point or not is kind of a matter of taste.

Same with the knight/squire example, maybe the squire just nods vaguely and ignores the knight. Maybe he just gets sneakier from now on. Maybe a lot of things. Play to Find Out, and how you find out is, you rolls you some dice, makes some moves, and each participant says what the rules and principles provide, modulus preference and imagination.

I really do not get all this grousing about just playing the game as a game and RPing what happens. You all make it like you have some big mission to play a certain guy exactly a certain way.

So do you in the real life (outside the internet) get stuck in endless arguments that go nowhere and never end and you just keep doing it and doing it because there are no dice or GM fiat to settle it? Like if you and your partner cannot agree on what to make for dinner do you just continue arguing about it until you starve to death?