NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Aldarc]

Right. There is never going to be a table that directly accounts for resource loss in this regard. Another reason why I think RPGs (or at least D&D) should separate binary and contextual mechanics.

PF2 made saves a lot more contextual with different levels of outcomes with their saves and skill checks. However, I think that even things like partial success or success with a cost would be helpful. Saves in D&D for some spells already perform a similar function: i.e., partial damage. It's just about following-through with the sort of mechanics that are already present.

I think if more DMs were willing to let go a little bit, and let players succeed without invoking hard-coded rules, more players would lean into that style of play. That's what I see in my groups, anyway.

Life sounds great on top of Sugarcandy Mountain.

I think that you have to accept that not everyone is going to enjoy your RP diet, and I think that you need to understand why other people enjoy or follow the RP diet that they do that is different from your own. It's not a panacea that will magically solve things for people with different tastes.

Even if GMs let go, there will be many players who will still want abilities and skills that afford them more reliable and consistent outcomes that are not dependent on who the GM is for this campaign. There will still be people who prefer playing a fighter in PF2 or 4e than playing a fighter in Shadowdark or OSE.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if the DM is not fair?

Then they're a bad DM by my standards. The DM ought to IMO treat the setting and everyone in it, PC and NPC, as logical and consistent. Part of not pushing a plot as a DM is a reduction of that urge to protect your NPC. Just play them logically and have them react logically, and hope the PCs do the same.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure, it could go either way. But I don't think a player's interest in their PC's well-being, encouraged at every turn by the rules, can be considered to be no more a factor than the DMs desire to protect their NPCs. I simply don't think they're at the same level.

I think there's a huge incentive for DMs to protect their plot, though. At least, I have seen that many times with many DMs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there's a huge incentive for DMs to protect their plot, though. At least, I have seen that many times with many DMs.

That is a GM issue though. Not protecting your plot is an important piece of advice for GMs to learn

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the mechanical approach to stuff like deception or persuasion towards the PCs just doesn't work regardless of who sets the DC.

Mostly I'll agree with you, but here I think it can work for the PC to set their own DC if...following the guidance of 5e about uncertainty...they genuinely aren't sure if they find the argument persuasive or not, and are willing to cede the decision to a dice roll.

If they know their character would agree, or know they would not, they can just do that without rolling.

Again...symmetry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the mechanical approach to stuff like deception or persuasion towards the PCs just doesn't work regardless of who sets the DC. It's like rolling for the joke, except you're asking for log term pretence of being deceived or convinced even though the player is not. It just isn't fun to do that and if you do not trust the player to set the DC for things that go against their own interests, how do you expect them to play things that go against their own interests in good faith?

Seriously, if you need the PCs to be convinced or deceived, then just play the NPC so that the convincing/deception happens. If the players really buy it, their reaction will be genuine if it later turns out that were tricked, and they don't need to try to metagame around information their characters are not supposed to have. And if they don't buy it, then so be it.

Well, I don't agree. Mechanics are there for a reason, and I don't see a reason why players should have to be skilled socializers to play social-focused characters.

That being said, If your prefer such players essentially "get good" if they want to play such a PC, that's fine if it's what you and your group wants.

 

[Aldarc]

Mostly I'll agree with you, but here I think it can work for the PC to set their own DC if...following the guidance of 5e about uncertainty...they genuinely aren't sure if they find the argument persuasive or not, and are willing to cede the decision to a dice roll.

If they know their character would agree, or know they would not, they can just do that without rolling.

Again...symmetry.

And if the player is unfair?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think there's a huge incentive for DMs to protect their plot, though. At least, I have seen that many times with many DMs.

I wouldn't know. I don't run games with forced plots.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that you have to accept that not everyone is going to enjoy your RP diet, and I think that you need to understand why other people enjoy or follow the RP diet that they do that is different from your own. It's not a panacea that will magically solve things for people with different tastes.

Oh, I totally have. The one really persuasive argument (other than my own nat-20 brilliance, of course) I've seen in this thread is yours and @pemerton's, which is really "I, or people I know, like to play this way."

But what it persuades me of is that it's a good thing RPGs come in a wide variety of flavors, not that there's one game for everybody.

What I don't find persuasive is that the rules need to protect the story from the wrong sort of players, but those same rules can assume DMs are fine.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't think rules are needed to protect against either. I'm just pointing out the flaws in arguing that protections are only needed on one side.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And if the player is unfair?

Exact same answer you would have to the unfair DM, whatever that answer is. That was my point.