NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

I would say the analogy is not very close. Generally, departing from professed alignment results in penalties. But there is no penalty in BW or TB2e for playing against a Belief - in fact that can be a source of reward (which gets labelled Mouldbreaker).

I only meant in the sense that one would expect the character to start playing their character differently.

(Were there actual penalties for changing your alignment? Or only for acting contrary to it...?)

 

[Bill Zebub]

@Bill Zebub I think there is a general agreement that "magic" is by being rare a specific exception to the general rule that a player always has agency over their character's decisions.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[Bill Zebub]

OK, but now if you're just relying on the rules text, I can point to the text of the various RPGs I play which include social conflict resolution.

I had taken you to be espousing broad principles, rather than just setting out the rules of 5e D&D.

Sure you understand that "such as...." precedes an illustrative example?

I've said this a number of times, but maybe I should repeat it as clearly as possible:

• I am describing both my own preferences, and my rationale for those preferences
• I sometimes cite examples from specific games that I believe support those preferences, within those games. And I tend to choose 5e because a lot of people know it. (I don't even play it anymore myself.)
• I am not arguing that games have to be this way. Or that it doesn't work to play other ways, if that's what people want to do. I'm glad there's a wide range of games to suit all tastes.
• I enjoy discussing debating, and I both learn things from many of you, and being pushed to defend my own positions helps me clarify them for myself.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I will note, using a particularly socially adept NPC is an exception even in my games. Not every shopkeep and hobo is going to be trying to get one over on the PCs. So, we do have some common ground on thinking that social skill use on PCs ought to be an exception, I just dont require a supernatural condition for it.

I think we are close in positions here. I don't mind it being used on rare, predetermined occasions either. What I don't like is...to use the narrow example of 5e...the DM relying on general rules which I don't believe are meant to be used this way in order to accomplish it. Just write up an ability for that NPC! You don't have to call it "supernatural" or "magic", but it's essentially, "Something powerful this character can do that isn't available to most people."

That sounds like an awesome set piece battle with a smart opponent. It sounds much less awesome if its a common tactic that mages use to shutoff warlords.

This might be an instance I agree with you. I could see a bard or enemy warlord who has an archetype of shutting down their opponents abilities as a tactic, but again it wouldn't be common at all in my games. Though, I might allow it in certain circumstances to spice things up.

Now this seems especially antagonistic, but a fair question. I dont typically have PVP groups, but if I did, I might allow something like this because its coming from the player against the player and not me as GM as the originator. It would be a table wide discussion, however, on how to adjudicate soemthing like this, if to allow it at all.

This set up is interesting because its mundane against mundane and not mundane vs magic. The stakes are higher because the mundane for the warlord isnt a skill, its their actual shtick. Which leads me to think its more in line with magic and should take exceptional effort to negate. So, allowable in certain instances, but not the norm.

Yeah I would never actually allow this at my table, nor try to do it as a player. I was just bringing up an interesting, possibly problematic ramification of some of those assertions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

From the Scholar's Guide, pp 218-9:

In Torchbearer, we give you four tools you can use to make your expeditions more than just loot hunts and massacres. Beliefs, creeds, goals and instincts all contain the potential to hook in players and push play to another, more intense level.​

​

If, during an adventure, you find an opportunity to present a player with the choice of either playing a belief or acquiring loot, then you’ve offered what we call a meaningful decision. At this juncture, the player must decide what is most important: satisfying that belief or scoring some loot.​

​

Torchbearer thrives on choices like that. The game presents many opportunities for the players to earn benefits and improve their characters—through the rewards mechanism, advancements and acquiring loot. If you pit acquiring a reward against acquiring loot, your players will squirm and struggle with that decision. And the ultimate outcome will be more meaningful for the tension.​

​

The game becomes even more interesting once you present decisions that set a belief and a goal against one another. If a player has a belief to soak up loot and a goal to teach their young companion, what will they do if their young charge is captured - but they’ve also stumbled on a statue with glittering gems for eyes? Will the player waste time prying out those gems or will they hurry to the rescue?​

​

If a character has a belief about making it rich but a goal about serving the common good, the game master can create tension by offering conflicts that fork both priorities. . . .​

​

The key to playing Torchbearer is to insert those situations into your adventures and leave them there for the player to decide. Don’t force them. You can prompt a player to make a choice, but let them make the decision. Neither outcome is correct or better. It’s the decision that matters. . . .​

​

But if they do write those beliefs and goals about solving the riddle, saving their companions or scoring a big haul, be sure to give them a chance and include those moments in your game.​

Yes, the stuff about providing meaningful choices is good. That's what I want.

And from pp 221-2:

Players can convert their relationship characters into friends and enemies during play.​

​

To make a friend, the player must make a genuine and sincere gesture to the character that appeals to the character’s idiom. Sometimes a thoughtful gift is enough, but in some cases you might have to prove yourself across multiple adventures. Go with your gut. Do you feel a kinship between these two characters? If so, then add the friend to the player’s allies list. They’re considered a friend for all that implies in the rules.​

​

Making a friend might involve arguments and debates, but you can’t argue someone into agreeing to be your friend. Such agreements are merely alliances and friendship may or may not be the result.​

​

Conversely, it’s possible to make new enemies in play. If you deem that a player has treated a character cruelly or callously, you should add that character to the player’s enemies list. This character now counts as an enemy for all that implies in the rules. This new enemy will seek to bring about the character’s downfall directly or through careful plotting.​

I am not quite sure what this has to do with the conversation.

Here was your example, upthread:
Where does the necromancer come from? Are they an established enemy? If not, why is the GM framing a situation where they are trying to command the PC? How has this necromancer become salient?

Likewise, the sick mother. Where has this state of affairs come from?

And what about the red ruby of doom - why is that salient? Have the PCs been searching for it, and for clues about it? Or is the GM just pulling it into play like a rabbit from a hat?

As I posted upthread, you seem to be assuming that the GM is under no constraints in framing scenes, establishing conflicts and stakes, establishing failure results, etc. None of that is true of the GM in Torchbearer 2e, in Burning Wheel, or in Marvel Heroic RP. Prince Valiant is more informal in the way it discusses these things, but I think there are some pretty clear "best practices" for that game also.

This was just a random example I made up. But presumably at least the existence of the mother, them being sick and the PC caring about them must be established before. Possibly the necromancer and the gem too. But what I imagined this situation doing, is exactly the sort of thing that your first quote of Torchbearer rules talks about. It is to give a character a tough choice that challenges their beliefs. Do I save my mother if the price is empowering this nefarious necromancer? And I want the player to be actually be able to make that choice, not have the social mechanics to decide it!

 

[payn]

I think we are close in positions here. I don't mind it being used on rare, predetermined occasions either. What I don't like is...to use the narrow example of 5e...the DM relying on general rules which I don't believe are meant to be used this way in order to accomplish it. Just write up an ability for that NPC! You don't have to call it "supernatural" or "magic", but it's essentially, "Something powerful this character can do that isn't available to most people."

Im of two minds on this. I am an odd bird in that PF1 remains my favorite fantasy RPG. I love sub-systems and got loads of them in that era. Enough to play it forever. So, I am very used to the special ability, feat, class function, prestige, etc.. So, making up something special and giving it a template or whatever is second nature to me. This fits a consistent rules over rulings mindset.

However, I also really like static resolution systems. For example, 5E has bounded accuracy so the DC table is the DC table. In Traveller ('goose 2E which I currently use) the check is 8 on 2D6+attribute+skill mod roll. The ref can make it 6 if its an easy thing, or they can make it 10 if its difficult. The important thing here is that both GM and player understand the base system. Anything you put on top is using that as its base. So, the risks and terms are always understandable. Making rulings over rules consistent in application.

 

[Aldarc]

NVM

 

[Bill Zebub]

Im of two minds on this. I am an odd bird in that PF1 remains my favorite fantasy RPG. I love sub-systems and got loads of them in that era. Enough to play it forever. So, I am very used to the special ability, feat, class function, prestige, etc.. So, making up something special and giving it a template or whatever is second nature to me. This fits a consistent rules over rulings mindset.

However, I also really like static resolution systems. For example, 5E has bounded accuracy so the DC table is the DC table. In Traveller ('goose 2E which I currently use) the check is 8 on 2D6+attribute+skill mod roll. The ref can make it 6 if its an easy thing, or they can make it 10 if its difficult. The important thing here is that both GM and player understand the base system. Anything you put on top is using that as its base. So, the risks and terms are always understandable. Making rulings over rules consistent in application.

My solution to that latter part in 5e is...again...to go ahead and use the 5e play loop, but since it inverts the PC -> NPC dynamic, also invert the referee roll. Just let the player determine probability of success, and agree to abide by the results!

Some people hate that. Can't trust players and all.

 

[payn]

My solution to that latter part in 5e is...again...to go ahead and use the 5e play loop, but since it inverts the PC -> NPC dynamic, also invert the referee roll. Just let the player determine probability of success, and agree to abide by the results!

Some people hate that. Can't trust players and all.

If my GM proposed that to me, id give it a shot. Im learning to roll with rulings over rules a lot and im getting more into giving the players some narrative control and stakes ownership in the game rules. I think in the past, not having a common framework with my GM was an issue. You know the GM that just says, "um...sure...DC50!" You just didnt know what the GM was going to pull, and if it was reasonable or not. I feel a lot more comfortable about that now.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I've read the OP and skimmed the intervening 98 pages, so apologies if I'm re-hashing things.

I don't think of an NPC using a social skill on my PC as a loss of agency. I think of it as a role-playing opportunity. It's lots of fun going along with a situation you know will land you hot water.