NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Thomas Shey]

I tell you what, I don't want to argue at cross purposes so perhaps you could provide an example of a game where something like a decieve roll in any way forces responses on a player, as per the examples we've been noodling about above. This isn't a passive agresssive thing, I'm just not sure what you actually mean and it would be helpful to have an example.

Most of the cases I'm referring to don't force a response on either side, any more than Stealth forces a response on anyone, because that's what they treat Deceive as--social Stealth.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, but that leads us back to expected adjudication. Player actions in D&D have a declared outcome, DM actions don't in the same way. I was looking for an example that was different.

See above. "Forces a response" is an example of what I referred to as malformed social mechanics in most cases. (Forcing a status is a different story, and occurs in multiple games, but that tends to apply more to things like Intimidate).

 

[soviet]

I found a way of handling this stuff in my game Other Worlds:

The key thing to remember in any social scene is that winning the battle is not the same as winning the war. Persuasion isn’t brainwashing; you can’t convince someone to abandon their entire belief system just because of a ten-minute conversation. What you can do instead is put social pressure on them to concede this particular point for fear of looking silly or obstructive or whatever. Therefore, if a player character loses a social conflict, it expressly does not mean that they can’t still do what they want; it simply means that they can’t still do what they want without paying some kind of price. This is actually really good stuff for roleplaying purposes, because not only does it present the character with a difficult choice as to whether or not to stick to his guns in the face of such opposition, it also sets up lots of potentially interesting conflicts for the future.​

So instead of 'you failed the intimidate check, you must do what he says', what you would end up with is something akin to 'you failed the intimidate check, if you don't do what he says you are at a disdvantage against him'. Instead of 'you failed the persuade check in the big meeting, he convinces you' you might end up with 'you failed the persuade check in the big meeting, if you don't do what he says everyone else in the meeting thinks you are being unreasonable and you are at disadvantage on future persuade checks with them'.

 

[nevin]

I think deception is different from fear and similar effects in that fear is a gut reaction whereas deception operates at an intellectual level.

If the players can tell that an NPC is not being truthful, they should be able to react accordingly.

Another example would be NPC persuasion. Should an NPC be able to convince a PC to give up their prized magic item simply on a roll of the dice? I'm guessing most players wouldn't voluntarily do that.

no but the npc should be able to convince the NPC's that what he is saying is something he completely believes. (even if he doesn't) . If a PC can roll to determine if an NPC believes thier BS why is it loss of agency if an NPC can do the same thing. I think you are confusing agency with the player actions. A player can know that what they've been told is BS but thier character may have to believe it and then <gasp> they have to role play the character........

 

[Micah Sweet]

no but the npc should be able to convince the NPC's that what he is saying is something he completely believes. (even if he doesn't) . If a PC can roll to determine if an NPC believes thier BS why is it loss of agency if an NPC can do the same thing. I think you are confusing agency with the player actions. A player can know that what they've been told is BS but thier character may have to believe it and then <gasp> they have to role play the character........

Precisely what I'm trying to say. PCs should not IMO be immune to game effects that work on NPCs by virtue of being PCs.

 

[FrogReaver]

Always seemed to me that “agency” was just a nonsense buzz word.

Indeed, especially when one realizes the games revered for high agency often, if not typically take away at least some of the players ‘agency’ over their PCs mind via game mechanics.

It turns into not more or less agency, but what things does one want agency over.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agency is a very useful word to examine issues of expectations, system design, and fortune mechanics. It's not a word that can be invoked whenever someone doesn't like how someone works. DIfferent games do certainly slice up agency over the setting/gamestate differently though, although most of them fall within a pretty narrow (IMO) range centered around something like OD&D, or perhaps inhabit a range between OD&D and PBTA I suppose.

Interesting. I find it to outright make a conversation around any of those things more muddled, obfuscating and generally harder.

The only quasi use case I see for the word is if you have two people that already want to be able to influence/control the same particular things in a game, then they can at least use the word as short hand for the particulars they want influence/control over when talking to each other. But that shorthand breaks down quickly when you have more people conversing than just those in their in group.

 

[KYRON45]

Agency used to mean the ability of the players/PCs to affect the....i was gonna say story.....things.
Forcing the party to go left when they can clearly choose other options....that's taking away the parties agency.
You can throw all the vocabulary you want at it....expectations, mechanics, game state....players want to interact in good. faith.
The only expectation I have when playing any RPG is having fun.
Hold the fish loosely my friends.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm generally of the opinion that a game should either have rules for social interaction in setting that apply to everyone or it shouldn't have rules for such beyond free roleplay at all.

As long as the DM can assess the situation for the NPC and rule no roll required (outright success or failure) and the player cannot do that for their PC then the same rules dont apply to PC and NPC.

Similarly if the rules require a roll but the DM is free to pick the DC, but the player cannot when a social skill is used on his PC then PC and NPC rules around social skills are not equal.

 

[KYRON45]

As long as the DM can assess the situation for the NPC and rule no roll required (outright success or failure) and the player cannot do that for their PC then the same rules dont apply to PC and NPC.

Similarly if the rules require a roll but the DM is free to pick the DC, but the player cannot when a social skill is used on his PC then PC and NPC rules around social skills are not equal.

Doesn't the DM pick all of the DCs regardless of its for a PC or not?