NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Thomas Shey]

I think this sums it up very succinctly.

It seems to me that there are many, many instances where a character's agency in the game is reduced or denied, and the player should be able to represent that faithfully, without any kind of forceful intervention by the GM: fear effects, enchantments, illusions, intoxication, whatever. It does seem odd to me that a social interaction which is skill-governed should deserve special consideration; I still don't see why.

I'll just say that when viewing the participants in the hobby as a whole, "should' is doing some seriously heavy lifting in this sentence.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But how is that possible? In the real worlds there was no rules or the GM who forced you to act this way, yet you did!

I don't think its a given that in the real world there's no rules that force people to act in a given way. The fact said rules can be pretty opaque doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Celebrim]

I'll just say that when viewing the participants in the hobby as a whole, "should' is doing some seriously heavy lifting in this sentence.

I think that it's obvious that a role-playing game as it has been played and continues to have been played is some part game, some part simulation, and some part story - and probably several other things besides. "RPG" covers a lot of territory, so that we could say "Nethack" is an RPG and "Mass Effect", and "D&D" and "Dogs in the Vineyard" and "10 Candles".

I don't agree with all the elements of GNS theory, least of all that those three things are always competing and you can only support one (or should only support one). But in this case I do think there is an inherent conflict between the RPG as a game (that people participate and make choices in) and the RPG as a simulation (where we are trying to bring to life some fictional reality in a shared space).

The game part of the scene wants to give the player as much freedom to direct his role in the story as possible. The simulation part of the scene however says, "But you aren't yourself in the fiction, but are instead playing a character whose choices should depend on their desires, emotions, feelings, and so forth and not your own."

I don't think there is any one right answer here. I don't even think there are two right answers here. I think you have to consider the table and the goals of the group and come up with procedures that address those two (or more) different competing interests. I outlined above how I do it, without addressing I think the real problem being addressed which is - "What is really the best engine for determining how a character should feel and behave?"

I decidedly come down for various reasons on the side of "Most of the time, the player best knows who the character is and is best equipped to decide how the character would respond to any given situation." There is a lot of reasons by that but one of them is that it avoids me passing undesirable metagame information to the players. If I have an NPC persuade the players to do something, I don't have to dice for whether he persuaded the characters. If I did have to dice as to whether the NPC persuaded the characters, then I'd also have to tell the player, "You've been persuaded by his words." or "You've not been persuaded by his words." and in doing so I fear I'd give hints to the players as to what they should or shouldn't have been persuaded about. I want to avoid as much as possible conducting the scene out of character and passing metagame information like, "You've successfully been deceived."

The truth is that the game can be made "most fun" but the simulation can never be made "most perfect". It's beyond my power to make the simulation perfect and the metagame is always in play. And even if I could make the simulation perfect, the only way to do it was to remove the players from it and not give them a chance to make choices. You'd have to somehow quantify the whole of a character's personality and then dice for every choice to be made in every situation and somehow have this "engine" be more correct in its judgment than the player. Such a simulation would have more rules than a Large Language Model, and be totally unplayable as a game - you could observe it but that would be all.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I'll just say that when viewing the participants in the hobby as a whole, "should' is doing some seriously heavy lifting in this sentence.

Maybe. I guess my point is that ideally - from my perspective, at least - a failed social check should carry meaningful consequences which negatively impact that character, and preferably without the GM applying force. My own experience has been pretty lucky with players who roll with this kind of situation and embrace any kind of calamity with a certain gusto, but I can certainly see the merits of formalizing the repercussions.

That said, I think my preference is to leave it to the player. I would generally choose a collaborative game which is not formally structured in this specific dimension. Which is to say, "Her Bluff check was successful, the ball's in your court. What next?" And then...whatever.

I don't think its a given that in the real world there's no rules that force people to act in a given way. The fact said rules can be pretty opaque doesn't mean they don't exist.

I am sidestepping that particular deterministic rabbit hole.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The truth is that the game can be made "most fun" but the simulation can never be made "most perfect".

I assume you're referring to it to being made "most fun" for a carefully selected audience here? Or is it "most fun that's possible considering the audience"?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe. I guess my point is that ideally - from my perspective, at least - a failed social check should carry meaningful consequences which negatively impact that character, and preferably without the GM applying force. My own experience has been pretty lucky with players who roll with this kind of situation and embrace any kind of calamity with a certain gusto, but I can certainly see the merits of formalizing the repercussions.

I'm just suggesting that people end up gaming in contexts where their priorities and the priorities of the game (and other participants in same) are not entirely in sync, and when that happens, sometimes those priorities aren't going to entirely be with playing the game (and to the point of this topic, the characters therein) entirely as the designers and other players see it as being done.

I am sidestepping that particular deterministic rabbit hole.

I didn't mean it in a heavily determinist sense, just in that not all the controls are in the hands of the person making decisions. I suppose if you've got a hardcore "determinism or free will" view of such things, it'd land in the prior, but I'm not particularly binary in my thinking there.

 

[Celebrim]

I assume you're referring to it to being made "most fun" for a carefully selected audience here? Or is it "most fun that's possible considering the audience"?

Either way.

 

[pemerton]

these are completely very different things even though you're unable to see it. One is about external the other is about internal. The internal state of the character is about emotions, wants etc that will influence the goals of the character. If you mess wit them you mess with the core of the player agency. It is quite different the rules to tell the player that their character was unable to beat the ogre king, than that they no longer want to beat the ogre king.

This thing about changing character goals is something you have introduced to the discussion. I don't accept it, and have made multiple posts explaining why not.

As for the idea that the "internal" is more fundamental to a character than the "external", I don't think that's universally or even typically true. Aragorn, for instance, is defined as much by the fact of his true kingship (something external) as by his humility in pursuit of it (something internal).

You are completely ignoring my point. Whilst it is possible that what @andreszarta suggests happens, there is no need to assume that it always or even usually does. In real world there are no rules or GM fiat to end arguments, yet people do not get stuck for arguing for days, unable to do something else. So if we accept that real people are authentic, then certainly authentic resolution is perfectly possible with characters as well.

But how is that possible? In the real worlds there was no rules or the GM who forced you to act this way, yet you did!

I'm not ignoring your point. Rather, I don't really agree with it.

That is, I don't accept that pretending to debate something is the same thing as actually debating it. Two people discuss something they both actually care about, and someone yields because they don't think it's worthwhile jeopardising the interpersonal relationship - that's one thing. Two RPGers portray characters discussing something, and one of them yields because they think it's time for the game to move onto something else - that's a different thing.

Two people discuss something, presenting reasons to one another. And one person is persuaded by the other's reasons. That's one thing. Two RPGers portray characters discussing something, and one of them decides to portray their character as persuaded by the "reasons" that the other has chosen to adduce. That's a different thing. It may or may not reflect the strength of the reasons.

There may be some cases, in RPGing, where the discussion is not pretence. For instance, in the fiction two people ("characters') discuss whether to travel north together or south together; and at the table, two players of those characters discuss whether to have their PCs head north or head south in the imaginary world. In the fiction, the discussion involves considerations of reasons like what is likely to be found to the north or the south, both desirable and undesirable; and at the table, the discussion involves the same considerations. The reasons in both the imagined situation, and the real situation, are the same, and are predominantly instrumental.

Even those sorts of discussion, though, can generate issues at the table. For instance, it's not absurd to think that two generals might spend hours discussing what is the best next move for their forces; or that two leaders of an investment firm might spend hours discussing what is the best way to invest $10 million. In either case, they might also call for additional evidence, expert reports, etc. But in a RPG, if the discussion goes on for more than 20 or 30 minutes it might be starting to outlive its welcome. And - given that there are often no "expert reports" to be had about the fiction - the notion of evidence and hence of reasons also doesn't really work the same way.

And that's before we get to reasons that aren't really intellectual ones. For instance, consider the fairy-tale trope of the dubious figure who offers the protagonist magically tainted food or drink. In the fiction, the character may be famished, and/or parched, and so takes the food/drink and wolfs/gulps it down without stopping to think. At the table, the player is typically neither famished nor parched, and so the decision to have their PC wolf/gulp the food down is a decision about authorship, not about satisfying an appetite or a bodily demand.

A lot of cases are similar - for instance, the players of a RPG aren't subjected to distracting sights, sounds and smells; don't have to actually endure the trek from one place of business to another if they don't wish to deal with a vendor's confusing patter; etc.

in my games the characters have quite often been goaded by the NPCs to do questionable things. Yet no rules forced them to. I just created a situation where the characters were under pressure and compelling NPC that convinced them of this stuff.

OK. Most of the posters in this thread seem like they've done quite a bit of RPGing. So most of us have probably experienced what you're describing here, whether as players or GMs or both. I'm not sure what is meant to follow from it.

Willing suspension of disbelief and all that. But this doesn't mean anything goes. The GM must actually do the work. Like sure in a horror game the players should be willing to play characters that can get scared and endeavour to maintain the atmosphere, but the GM still needs to make the things actually feel scary. You just cannot replace genuine feeling with rules. That's why horror movies actually spend a lot of effort establishing the atmosphere and making stuff genuinely frightening instead of the narrator just saying "this is scary, now be scared." Same goes for romance and whatever atmosphere or feeling one might wish to evoke. Now if the GM is bad at doing this, if they cannot evoke genuine feeling, then it might be tempting to replace this by rules, but at least to me that is just as futile than a comedian saying "this is funny, now laugh."

And I don't see why you think that your bad experiences of play generalise to others. I mean, maybe the social rules in the games that you have played have the form of "this is funny, now laugh". But that's not how they work in the games that I play and have posted about.

 

[pemerton]

There is some kind of fundamental difference in how we parse fiction. If not in general exegetic terms then certainly as it applies to rpg's.

Are you able to elaborate on what you see the difference as being?

Luke, Andre and you saw issues with the rules and authority and so your approach to system nails them down. My issues were more with a kind of expressive coherence, how are we mutually parsing what's happening.

Again, I would be interested in hearing more about the issues of expressive coherence that you are referring to.

When I think of coherence in the context of social conflicts in RPGing - and I'm not sure if this counts as expressive coherence - I think first of the common tendency to subordinate the genuine social and emotional life of the character to considerations of expedience - whether that be "party cohesion" (common in adventure-oriented RPGing) or other practical concerns that are seen as necessary to make the game work. But I don't know if this is the sort of issue that you have in mind.

I think it's impossible to gain any further understanding

This seems a bit pessimistic to me!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This thing about changing character goals is something you have introduced to the discussion. I don't accept it, and have made multiple posts explaining why not.

You have said you don't accept it, you however have failed to explain why this actually doesn't happen. Roll determines character is in love with an NPC: goals affected. A character convinces another that they should stop pursuing their love: goals affected.

OK. Most of the posters in this thread seem like they've done quite a bit of RPGing. So most of us have probably experienced what you're describing here, whether as players or GMs or both. I'm not sure what is meant to follow from it.

A lot of posters seem to have hard time conceiving this, as they seem to be under impression that it cannot be done and you need rules to force the players to pretend that they've been goaded or misled.

And I don't see why you think that your bad experiences of play generalise to others. I mean, maybe the social rules in the games that you have played have the form of "this is funny, now laugh". But that's not how they work in the games that I play and have posted about.

It seems to work like this in your games. Characters fall in love with NPCs because of dice rolls etc.