NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

Though you may find your traps analogy helpful, I don't. If anything, IMHO, it risks potentially sidetracking a more direct discussion of social interaction rules in TTRPGs.

You said "privilege social interaction to the exclusion of all else" and I was explaining that I treat a lot of other complexity the same way.

If there's any "privileged" component it's combat.

 

[Aldarc]

What system do you play with your partner that has those mechanics? It's hard (for me) to not always frame these discussions within 5e...which I don't even play anymore!...and in that system there are not explicit rules for social interaction. There is just a play loop, and a couple of quotes here and there that seem to apply.

I'm not sure what to tell you. Unless you are talking about something else, there are rules or guidelines in 5e PHB and DMG for when the GM calls for a check, and checks include Charisma checks and associated skills. I'm not not sure how you missed that. It's barebones but something is better than nothing IMHO. There were likewise social skill challenges in D&D, which were found in the non-combat encounters section of the DMG (yes, alongside traps).

And I'm not sure how easy it is to "remove" rules once they exist.

And not having rules at all is an utter lack of support for the option.

As I've noted, once there seems to be a "button to press" on a character sheet, players seem to want to press that button to solve problems, rather than engage creatively with the scene.

Because that's all this issue amounts to right, people wanting a button to press rather than creative engagement? Yikes. It's condescending bad faith takes like this that haven't done anything to convince me otherwise of my position either.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not sure what to tell you. Unless you are talking about something else, there are rules or guidelines in 5e PHB and DMG for when the GM calls for a check, and checks include Charisma checks and associated skills. I'm not not sure how you missed that. It's barebones but something is better than nothing IMHO. There were likewise social skill challenges in D&D, which were found in the non-combat encounters section of the DMG (yes, alongside traps).

A few issues with that assertion:

• There is a direct quote that says the player decides what their character thinks and does.
• "Specific overrides general": spells and abilities that override the previous statement are clearly stated. Results of social interactions are not.
• Descriptions of the play loop refer to players. One might infer that this is symmetric, but it is not stated.
• Since "players decide what their characters think and do" is more specific than the play loop description, it overrides it.
• The play loop also says that the DM first decides if an action automatically succeeds or fails, and only calls for a roll if there's uncertainty. If we are assuming the play loop is symmetric, then wouldn't it be up to the player to make that call? Otherwise it's not really symmetric, which throws out the symmetry assumption.

And not having rules at all is an utter lack of support for the option.

Agreed. Like I said, I think there is a trade-off. There's no way to solve perfectly for both goals.

Because that's all this issue amounts to right, people wanting a button to press rather than creative engagement? Yikes. It's condescending bad faith takes like this that haven't done anything to convince me otherwise of my position either.

Huh. I didn't say that that people want that. I said that's what seems to happen.

So maybe go easy on the accusations of "bad faith" and "condescending"?

I don't expect to convince you. I find it interesting/useful to debate these things because it forces me to apply more rigor to my own thinking.

 

[TwoSix]

Huh. I didn't say that that people want that. I said that's what seems to happen.

I feel like part of the premise you're presenting is that "creative engagement" here means, specifically, more thespianism and in-character dialogue at the table. That there's a desire to see standard TTRPG play be a little more LARP-like, with the PCs and the DM talking to each other in extended scenes (multiple minutes long) of in-character dialogue.

And there's a concern that allowing social checks would make these sort of activities less likely to occur.

 

[Aldarc]

A few issues with that assertion:

• There is a direct quote that says the player decides what their character thinks and does.
• "Specific overrides general": spells and abilities that override the previous statement are clearly stated. Results of social interactions are not.
• Descriptions of the play loop refer to players. One might infer that this is symmetric, but it is not stated.
• Since "players decide what their characters think and do" is more specific than the play loop description, it overrides it.
• The play loop also says that the DM first decides if an action automatically succeeds or fails, and only calls for a roll if there's uncertainty. If we are assuming the play loop is symmetric, then wouldn't it be up to the player to make that call? Otherwise it's not really symmetric, which throws out the symmetry assumption.

The big problem here is that you are reading my statement about what rules for social interaction exist in 5e as any kind of assertion. It was not. Otherwise, I am not supposing whatever strawman you are apparently arguing against here.

Huh. I didn't say that that people want that. I said that's what seems to happen.

So maybe go easy on the accusations of "bad faith" and "condescending"?

Your distinction does not strike me as a useful one as it still comes across as a bad faith characterization of other people and playstyles so that hardly helps matters any.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think things like Deception and Persuasion are always tricky in an RPG for this and other reasons. The most common thing I see is persuasions is something PCs use against NPCs but not vice versa. The way I do it in my own games is not have these skills impact actions directly. They simply tell the outside world how convincing, charming, etc the person is being (a sleazy sales person who shows up at your door and rolls a 20, maybe be charming but that doesn't mean you are automatically going to buy his vacuum cleaner because there are so many other things to consider, like whether you want or have the money for a vacuum cleaner). I find when skills like this are approached in this way, you can have them go in the direction or PCs or NPCs, without impacting the agency of either (because I think NPCs should also have agency)

 

[Bill Zebub]

I feel like part of the premise you're presenting is that "creative engagement" here means, specifically, more thespianism and in-character dialogue at the table. That there's a desire to see standard TTRPG play be a little more LARP-like, with the PCs and the DM talking to each other in extended scenes (multiple minutes long) of in-character dialogue.

No, definitely not. It does not have to be 1st person acting.

Maybe this will clarify (using an example from upthread):

1. "If you don't help us I will expose your affair with the Count's daughter to the whole court!"
2. I'll threaten to tell the court about the man's affair if he doesn't help us.
3. Can I roll Persuasion to see if he'll help us?

I'm just saying that I greatly prefer #1 or #2 (and, really, I prefer #2 myself) to #3.

And there's a concern that allowing social checks would make these sort of activities less likely to occur.

Yes. In my experience if there's a button on the character sheet players...especially new players, and I get a lot of those...will try to press that button.

EDIT: To further clarify, when faced with a challenge, I often see players looking over the list of skills on the character sheet to see which one they want to "use", instead of thinking about what the problem is and what some creative solutions might be. I see that occur a lot less frequently in Shadowdark, which does not have a list of skills on the sheet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My partner has autism. They hate free form RPing social scenes and greatly prefer being able to roll instead of saying what they describe as the "magic words" that unlocks whatever the GM is playing at in social interactions. The latter greatly stresses them out and reduces the entire fun of playing roleplaying games for them.

I don't think I've ever been in a group that didn't have at least one member who felt that way. And I would never give anyone a hard time for feeling that way, in part because I have some of that inclination myself.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think things like Deception and Persuasion are always tricky in an RPG for this and other reasons. The most common thing I see is persuasions is something PCs use against NPCs but not vice versa. The way I do it in my own games is not have these skills impact actions directly. They simply tell the outside world how convincing, charming, etc the person is being (a sleazy sales person who shows up at your door and rolls a 20, maybe be charming but that doesn't mean you are automatically going to buy his vacuum cleaner because there are so many other things to consider, like whether you want or have the money for a vacuum cleaner). I find when skills like this are approached in this way, you can have them go in the direction or PCs or NPCs, without impacting the agency of either (because I think NPCs should also have agency)

Other than the part about symmetry (once again, if the DM is deciding on the DC in both directions then it's not really symmetric), I agree with all of the above.

For example, I think a great way to use a successful persuasion roll to try to convince a PC is for the DM to use their own knowledge about the player to make a better argument. E.g. "...and I'll let you copy (insert spell player has been wanting) from my spell book..."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I've been describing why I don't reduce trap and secret door finding to die rolls, and I don't reduce the avoidance of traps (or even the opening of those secret doors) to die rolls.

Heck, I don't even really do it for opening locks. I don't ask for rolls to see if they can open the locks, I only ask for rolls if there's some circumstance like they don't want to leave evidence they've opened it, or they have to do it under time pressure.



And I have genuine empathy for that. But I'm not sure that means that mode of play should be the default.

Who's calling for a "default" here? We're all just discussing our preferences and why they work best for us (and defending them when others disagree).