NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

Not really. There is no way to resolve fictional conflict authentically… because it’s all made up. It’s inauthentic by nature.

No matter how immersed you are in your character, you aren’t actually making the decisions they are making. You are making a decision as a player.

"All fiction is inauthentic." OK, that certainly is a take. One I do not share, and one I think is very counterproductive attitude. I think one needs to pursue authenticity, and declaring it to be impossible from the get go probably is not going to lead to increased authenticity.

No one has said that, as far as I have seen. That seems more like a mischaracterization of people saying that sometimes allowing the system to have a say about what a character thinks or feels is valid, and perhaps, even preferable.

Several people have said things like "People make bad decisions or are deceived in real life so RPGs should have rules that force PCs to make bad decisions or to be deceived." This to me implies that they feel these rules are required to achieve this.

 

[TwoSix]

Several people have said things like "People make bad decisions or are deceived in real life so RPGs should have rules that force PCs to make bad decisions or to be deceived." This to me implies that they feel these rules are required to achieve this.

Not so much that rules are required, but rather that having to actually perform the NPC narration such that the players themselves are actually tricked is NOT a requirement.

I think a major divide here is that you seem to value performative thespianism (the "playacting" part of roleplaying) very highly, and I think you've spoken fondly of the LARP experience (if I'm remembering correctly); from what I've seen of other's people posts, I think they favor formal game structure over thespianism.

 

[Celebrim]

Several people have said things like "People make bad decisions or are deceived in real life so RPGs should have rules that force PCs to make bad decisions or to be deceived." This to me implies that they feel these rules are required to achieve this.

There is no need to double down on making player characters make bad decisions. The bad decisions the player makes are frequent and bad enough no additional mechanic is required.

But I wonder if the same poster that think we need to force PCs to make bad decisions also thinks that every time the player makes a bad decision, the DM should give the character a saving throw to resist the bad decision and make a good one instead?

 

[Celebrim]

Not so much that rules are required, but rather that having to actually perform the NPC narration such that the players themselves are actually tricked is NOT a requirement.

Requirement is such a loaded term. Very few things are required, and of course this isn't among them.

But the experience at the table of having your character tricked and you as the player being tricked are very different. Having your character tricked but you not being tricked requires you to metagame how your character would behave if they were tricked without having the knowledge that you now have. It is quite contrary to your conclusion, "performative thespianism" of the highest order. You know the script, and now you must act as your character rather than yourself. And there is some thespian value in this exercise.

But it's a very different experience than being a character in a story and then discovering that you've been tricked. Only if the player is also tricked do you get this emotional connection to the story beats where you discover the tricks as a player and experience rather than imagine the sorts of emotions your character would have at that moment. In other words, what's really being prioritized here is immersion and not "performative thespianism". What's being prioritized here is the experience of the player.

Note also the lack of symmetry in your discussion. You speak of the character being tricked when the player isn't, but not of the character not being tricked when the player is tricked. Why equivalently in your model can't you have the character taking actions as if they weren't tricked when the player has been tricked? Because of course, the character and the player aren't separate the way you want them to be. If the character starts taking actions on its own as if it hasn't been tricked, then the player observing the character is going to conclude that they have been tricked. The character's knowledge would leak back to the player, because while the player is playing at a role, still the character is also in important ways the player. Plus, the character has no will or volition of its own. If the character is taking actions outside of the player's guidance, then someone else is playing the character and we really ought not say this is a player character.

I think we can have dualities where there are symmetry and imagine that forced action by the character is potentially contrary to the player's desire and they have to imagine the performative roleplay either way, but not over the matter of having information about the fiction. Thus, while it's certainly not required that you do anything, over the matter of the difference between the player and the character knowledge, I side pretty much entirely on the idea that pool of knowledge is entirely shared. If the character knows anything the player doesn't, it should be told to the player, and anything that the player knows they are free to act on if they desire to. Of course, they can engage in performative roleplay and pretend they don't know it and act on that imagined state if they want, but I won't enforce it.

Ironically, last night I had a session where the player was being tricked but because of a fortuitous 4 6's on 4 dice roll, the character wasn't being tricked. So I told the player not only that they were being tricked but also how, and yet somehow, despite this disclosure both the player and the character ended up tricked anyway, apparently helpless to effectively act on the information given to them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There is no need to double down on making player characters make bad decisions. The bad decisions the player makes are frequent and bad enough no additional mechanic is required.

But I wonder if the same poster that think we need to force PCs to make bad decisions also thinks that every time the player makes a bad decision, the DM should give the character a saving throw to resist the bad decision and make a good one instead?

Under some circumstances I'd at least be making good and sure the player understood the implications of what they were doing. And if I saw a pattern of it, I'd be having a quiet side discussion to find out what they were doing.

(That said, I haven't seen much reason to assume people will deliberately make bad decisions (with the "bad" part referring to harming their character or their apparent aims) they presumably wouldn't, so its an odd hypothetical that leads to my second statement above, since the closest to it I've seen were a couple players who just liked sowing chaos, and I've rarely seen a campaign who's health was improved by such players).

 

[hawkeyefan]

"All fiction is inauthentic." OK, that certainly is a take. One I do not share, and one I think is very counterproductive attitude. I think one needs to pursue authenticity, and declaring it to be impossible from the get go probably is not going to lead to increased authenticity.

What I mean is that whatever the “reason” is in the fictional world of the game, it’s fictional. It’s a player of a game making a decision. It’s not the character deciding any more than a dice roll is the character deciding.

Several people have said things like "People make bad decisions or are deceived in real life so RPGs should have rules that force PCs to make bad decisions or to be deceived." This to me implies that they feel these rules are required to achieve this.

At times, sure. I shared two examples of when I thought that enhanced play. You then ran with the idea that I was trying to somehow apply this to every single decision made for the character, which isn’t the case at all.

The interaction of dice (or whatever randomizer) and how they shape play is essential to the EPG experience, in my opinion. Even your play is influenced by them… so it just seems a little odd to me to draw such a stark line when it comes to characters’ emotions or thoughts.

 

[aramis erak]

I think this is a critical distinction. Even in a fairly simple combat system like 5e, the squares you choose to stand on and move through have a dramatic impact on which dice get rolled. When you do finally roll the dice, your decisions have had a huge impact on the possible outcomes. And those decisions are not abstracted: I'm actually choosing a square on the board that feels cautious or aggressive or whatever.

(Interesting decision making does not require a grid; it can work in TotM as long as there are meaningful tactical options.)

But in some games, as the number of meaningful choices declines, so does my engagement with the combat system, until it feels like the dice are determining the outcome, not my decisions.

That's how social resolution mechanics...that I've seen...feel to me.

If anybody wants to point me to a social resolution system that feels more like my first example, I'd love to read up on it.

Burning Wheel/Burning Empires.
Duel of Wits, in a nutshell
Start by stating desired outcome, the resulting belief, and primary skill to achieving it. Then roll that skill, counting the successes and adding them to the base value of the skill to get your hit points, called your Disposition.
Likewise, your opponent (usually the GM) does likewise.
Note that it doesn't go forward until both sides agree to the outcomes.
Each round, plot three sequential actions; there are 7 choices in each.
Avoid the Topic, Dismiss, Feint, Rebuttal, Obfuscate, Point, incite
Both make a statement representing their argument.
The table is consulted to see how the rolling is going to happen. Sometimes only one side gets to roll, sometimes both roll but only one can inflict "damage"... Sometimes, both get to inflict independently. The table lays that out.
Then, the allowed/called for rolls are made on appropriate skills for the action and the statement made. (Charm isn't going to work on a point with the statement containing, "Only an idiot..." as an example)
When it ends? When one side's disposition hits zero, they lose, the other side gets what they agreed upon, but the winner has to give a concession to the goals of the loser; how much by how far down their own disposition hit.

It's not intended to be used for casual stuff, because it takes as long as a fist-fight or saber duel...

Also, Luke once advised that uninvolved players should be judging both sides statements, looking for fit and cool factor - good ones get a bonus die, bad ones lose a die from the dice pool.

Every group I've used it with liked it, even the player who otherwise didn't care for BW.

I'm going to quote the most important element, from page 442 of Burning Empires:

Argument, Not Mind Control

The Duel of Wits is designed to simulate debate and argument: A speaker convinces an audience of the merits of his point. It is not designed to change a single character’s or player’s opinion. While this is possible, of course, it is not the goal.

Think of it as something similar to a performance mechanic. Two performers hit the stage, competing for the audience’s attention. One might be more skilled than the other, but lack presence or even fail to appeal to the audience’s taste. At the end of the performance, the audience is applauding the crass nightclub act, while the virtuoso violinist is sulking in the corner. Neither of the performing characters’ opinions has been changed by the event, but the audience thinks that crooner is the cat’s meow—because, for them, his performance was better. And the violinist is walked off the stage. He can’t perform any more at this venue, unless he makes his case heard in another way.

Although the Duel of Wits cannot make a character like something or change a Belief about anything, it can force him to agree to something— even if only for the time being. At its core, it’s a conflict resolution mechanic that operates between players. You engage in a Duel of Wits because you want something from another character. These mechanics give you the steps for getting what you want.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

5E-2014 does have default skill/attribute associations. No more and no less hard linked than 3E or 4E.

 

[aramis erak]

The only alternative approach is that Characters fall in love with NPCs because some participant (player, GM, etc) decided it was so.

It's either dice or decide.

I've only seen a small handful of games where falling in love is forced by mechanics. Pendragon is one. Fate allows creating temporary aspect, and that can, without too much of a stretch, be a means of imposing a love (or hate, or disdain, etc) upon another. Vampire The Masquerade 1e is another, but it's a part of the blood bond mechanic, magic mind control. Ars Magica, it's a Rego Mentem spell effect, or a faerie power. It's also doable in Mage: The Ascension, but I don't remember the forces used. ElfQuest has the Recognition mechanic - it's not love, but it's irresistible rut instinct; it's also rare, and nigh-guarantees children resulting.

Of the games I've seen where it is mechanicalized, only Pendragon and Fate don't make it magic... tho' Love in pendragon has some profound effects. Including, if in a romance, a noticeable annual glory boost. And having a love score can do nigh-magical things in play via the Inspiration mechanic, so it's thematic and usually a benefit...

And Fate? Well, temporary aspects are just that - temporary, so unless the player opts to adopt it permanently, or a major concession on a social is needed, it goes away... but can be compelled a lot in the mean time. Cortex Plus and Cortex Prime also have

I'll note that R. Talsorian Games' RPGs almost all have background generators, and those can put good and bad romances in the character's past... but no mechanic for the present. Mongoose's version of Traveller does, too. But again, past only, not present nor future, and far less often than RTG. Jennell Jaquays' (as Paul Jaquays) Heroes of [x] series also included past romances good and bad.

Mechanicalizing Love an area where few games explicitly go, but the ones I've read that do do so for strong setting based reasons...

But Fate, Cortex Plus/Prime, and Pendragon, any long term (or in Fate and Cortex, short term, too) emotional state can be mechanicalized within the rules frameworks, and love is just a particularly potent one.