NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

On Magic, Warlords, and Persuasion

Magic
I just spent an hour (driving) thinking about "because magic" and while the phrase is often used mockingly, there is some truth to it. (As with "pushing buttons on character sheets" and "Mother, May I?")

If we define magic broadly to mean anything that happens/exists in a fantasy world but doesn't work in the real world, regardless of what the in-game explanation is, then to me it makes sense that it is also a catch-all for explaining exceptions to more general rules.

For example, I'm not sure a Dragon's fear is technically magical, but Dragons themselves are fantasy creatures. So a Dragon's bellowing roar is a kind of magic. I would object to a DM that allowed any creature (a shopkeeper?) to attempt a bellowing roar, and on a lucky 20 impose a fear condition on PCs.

In my thinking, "because magic" puts some guardrails around when and how a GM can take control away from my character. I'd be totally fine with the DM creating...even on the fly...a particular NPC that had some unusual (e.g. magical) ability to use mere words to compel behaviors form PCs. I don't need it explained as magical, I just need to know "Hey, this is an exception to the normal working of the world."


Warlords
I've also been thinking more about warlords, and why they are different from bards (again, in my mind).

A big part, maybe the biggest part, is the fluff around the class...starting wit the over-the-top name...that defines the class as a Leader. Whereas the bard could more accurately be described as a Cheerleader. Maybe you, dear reader, disagree and have different archetypes in mind, but that's where I am. I just don't think a class should be defined that way in relation to other classes.

And, yes, the fact that their abilities aren't based on magic is integral to that narrative, because that leaves the only explanation we have...for the warlord's ability to affect my PC...as narrative fluff about their impressive leadership. Whereas with a bard, my character can detest the bard and think he's a talentless hack. "But, hey, he used magic to inspire me."

Persuasion
Many people have said, "If you don't like imagining your character as looking up to the warlord's leadership, just refuse to let their abilities work on you." Putting aside the non-cooperative and downright antagonistic premise of that, let's look at a thought experiment:

1. Could the devious NPC sorcerer cast a spell, like mass suggestion, on the rest of the party that causes them to not admire, respect, or like the warlord, and would that mean that their non-magical powers can no longer benefit the rest of the party, until the spell is broken?
2. Instead of casting a spell, could the devious NPC simply "use Persuasion" and, by rolling higher on Cha(Persuasion) than the party members roll on Wis(Insight), achieve the same effect. "Hey, you know, that sorcerer had some really good points. This dude is just a mediocre Fighter with a big mouth. Why do we listen to him?"
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, does that mean that my PC, who doesn't like the Warlord, could try to Persuade the rest of the party they don't like him either, achieving the same effect?

In other words, if we believe the following assertions:

• Because the warlord's power is non-magical, it's valid that a PC who doesn't respect the warlord can be immune to their powers
• A PC can be forced to believe something by a successful "use Persuasion" check
• PvP follows the same rules as PC vs NPC

Then it follows that one player could, by rolling high on Persuasion, negate most of the abilities of somebody else's character.

 

[Celebrim]

@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.

I also think that there is widespread agreement that even though mind control magic exists, you don't use it for anything that could be considered repulsive and even if you could use that as an excuse to puppeteer a player, it's best to avoid ever doing that.

In my own game, if mind control occurs it generally is passed as a note to players with a stipulation like, "You now want to protect the fairy as best as you are able." or "You feel the need to get out of this situation right now." The idea is to leave to the players to act out the character impulse in a way they think their customer would act on that impulse. This relies on me of course having high trust in the player to do so in a reasonable manner and not immediately try to subvert the impulse, but it seems to work when playing with friends.

But if I wasn't playing with friends, I'd probably just avoid mind control magic entirely. Even magical fear has proved problematic with groups not familiar with me.

I will also say that in my homebrew magical charms and compulsions are considered in the classes of morally abhorrent magic that aren't acceptable - witchcraft if you will. Merely casting "Charm Person" is considered such a drastic act that if caught you will be tried and burned at the stake. It's considered a generally a crime as vile as sexual assault even if it isn't used for something that vile. Even so much as proof you know the spell could be considered proof of guilt. My impression is that most players are very glib about using magic to take away the consent of another sentient being and don't consider the moral implications there of in a way I think beings in a universe were that was possible would consider it and find it horrifying.

This shows up even in popular media, such as Obi Wan Kenobi saying "These aren't the droids we are looking for", would by most observers from my homebrew world be considered a bit repulsive, but justifiable given that it seemed the only way to protect innocent life at that time - no "dark side point" if you will. But the case in the prequels where he does it casually and it is played for laughs, "You don't want to sell me death sticks..." or Qui-Gon-Jinn attempting to use it to con a businessman out of his wage, those made me squirm and in the context of my homebrew would have been acts that were at best questionable and at worst deplorable evil. The extremis was not so great as to justify violating mental consent and using a compulsion.

Likewise, monsters that rely on compulsion are considered things of absolute horror and are often hunted and killed without mercy. Even dryads and hamadryads, which are of the natural world, aren't treated as cute or attractive, but as things of terror greatly to be feared and avoided. Go to sleep, tree. Be a tree. Please don't do us harm. Wood cutters literally scarify their faces to avoid the attention of the trees. Nothing funny about it.

 

[payn]

On Magic, Warlords, and Persuasion

Magic
I just spent an hour (driving) thinking about "because magic" and while the phrase is often used mockingly, there is some truth to it. (As with "pushing buttons on character sheets" and "Mother, May I?")

If we define magic broadly to mean anything that happens/exists in a fantasy world but doesn't work in the real world, regardless of what the in-game explanation is, then to me it makes sense that it is also a catch-all for explaining exceptions to more general rules.

For example, I'm not sure a Dragon's fear is technically magical, but Dragons themselves are fantasy creatures. So a Dragon's bellowing roar is a kind of magic. I would object to a DM that allowed any creature (a shopkeeper?) to attempt a bellowing roar, and on a lucky 20 impose a fear condition on PCs.
In my thinking, "because magic" puts some guardrails around when and how a GM can take control away from my character. I'd be totally fine with the DM creating...even on the fly...a particular NPC that had some unusual (e.g. magical) ability to use mere words to compel behaviors form PCs. I don't need it explained as magical, I just need to know "Hey, this is an exception to the normal working of the world."

I think there is an error in comparing a shopkeeper to a dragon here, but think I see where you are going with it. I dont think it unnatural or in need of magic or other normal world breaking explanation for a person to be good at deception, diplomacy, and/or intimidation. This is not supernatural stuff to me, and I see skills as a natural reflection of a person's ability.

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.

Warlords
I've also been thinking more about warlords, and why they are different from bards (again, in my mind).

A big part, maybe the biggest part, is the fluff around the class...starting wit the over-the-top name...that defines the class as a Leader. Whereas the bard could more accurately be described as a Cheerleader. Maybe you, dear reader, disagree and have different archetypes in mind, but that's where I am. I just don't think a class should be defined that way in relation to other classes.

And, yes, the fact that their abilities aren't based on magic is integral to that narrative, because that leaves the only explanation we have...for the warlord's ability to affect my PC...as narrative fluff about their impressive leadership. Whereas with a bard, my character can detest the bard and think he's a talentless hack. "But, hey, he used magic to inspire me."

Hmm, I see more of the mundane and magic dividing line here. Not saying its wrong, I struggled with the idea of mundane healing myself. For the bard example, I wouldn't go with magic, but also a mundane explanation.

Barbarian: "I hate that bard, and especially how he goads me during battle its irritating..."
Bard: "Yeah but that irritation builds your emotional fortitude into energy to dodge arrows and blades!"

What I reconciled with my issue with non-magical healing, was more my desire for resource attrition and niche protection. It was easy for me to grok it for the former, less so for the latter. I've certainly softened on the position of niche protection.

Anyways... I think we are seeing a concept that exceptional results come from exceptional abilities and are not possible from the mundane. Not surprising to hear, this is actually a common viewpoint amongst RPG players, and those of D&D in particular. I do think mundane skills have limits that magic doesnt, but I still think skills ought to be functional in the game for PCs and NPCs as a natural ability for them.

Persuasion
Many people have said, "If you don't like imagining your character as looking up to the warlord's leadership, just refuse to let their abilities work on you." Putting aside the non-cooperative and downright antagonistic premise of that, let's look at a thought experiment:

1. Could the devious NPC sorcerer cast a spell, like mass suggestion, on the rest of the party that causes them to not admire, respect, or like the warlord, and would that mean that their non-magical powers can no longer benefit the rest of the party, until the spell is broken?

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.

1. Instead of casting a spell, could the devious NPC simply "use Persuasion" and, by rolling higher on Cha(Persuasion) than the party members roll on Wis(Insight), achieve the same effect. "Hey, you know, that sorcerer had some really good points. This dude is just a mediocre Fighter with a big mouth. Why do we listen to him?"

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.

1. If the answer to #2 is yes, does that mean that my PC, who doesn't like the Warlord, could try to Persuade the rest of the party they don't like him either, achieving the same effect?

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.

In other words, if we believe the following assertions:

• Because the warlord's power is non-magical, it's valid that a PC who doesn't respect the warlord can be immune to their powers
• A PC can be forced to believe something by a successful "use Persuasion" check
• PvP follows the same rules as PC vs NPC

Then it follows that one player could, by rolling high on Persuasion, negate most of the abilities of somebody else's character.

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.

 

[Gimby]

On Magic, Warlords, and Persuasion

• Because the warlord's power is non-magical, it's valid that a PC who doesn't respect the warlord can be immune to their powers
• A PC can be forced to believe something by a successful "use Persuasion" check
• PvP follows the same rules as PC vs NPC

Then it follows that one player could, by rolling high on Persuasion, negate most of the abilities of somebody else's character.

For what it's worth, I largely had this happen in a 4e game - I was playing the Warlord who was butting heads with another character. Depending on how the relationship was going we were using the definition of Ally to alter whether or not the rival character (and others, from time to time) benefited from the Warlord abilities. Sometimes they would reject the abilities, sometimes the Warlord would exclude them from passive effects (like the Tactical Warlord initiative buff).

And this was great! It really gave some mechanical heft to their relationship and the performance of the party when everyone was in harmony was significantly better than when they weren't, which was to us at least, a surprising but very immersive mechanic.

For what it's worth, this didn't only affect Warlords in 4e - remember this was riding off the definition of "Ally", which was a defined mechanical thing. I forget the exact wording, it's been a while, but it was something like "Two creatures are Allies if they both believe that they are". Many effects from a variety of classes used Ally as a target, so this would affect them all equally. It also meant that you could get some subtlety in class/power effects by the Ally/Creature distinction - some effects you can compel onto your target, some you can't. Again, it's been a while but IIRC the Cure X Wounds cleric powers used creature targeting (so you could heal a resisting target [Magic!]) whereas the X Word abilities all used Ally targeting, so you'd need their permission.

To me, the above scenario is great - an NPC who is able to sufficiently able to disrupt the party's social cohesion significantly impacts their ability to co-ordinate as a group. Feels dramatic and appropriate for the genre.

Just to expound a bit further, the concept of an enemy completely hosing a character's main schtick isn't unique to the Warlord here, even if the method is unusual. Anti Magic Field casts, destroying spell components or books, Zone of Silence, Reverse Gravity on a melee fighter and so on. The Warlord can also take analogous actions to revert the effect - many will be Charisma focused and can persuade their party members back, while Intelligence focused ones might have to come up with a clever solution, in much the same way as the advice for a Wizard in an anti-magic field has always been.

Now, the objection here is that Anti Magic fields shouldn't be that common, but there isn't actually any rules against that (or even in most core DMGs, really much advice), so simply don't make your hyper-persuasive enemy/enchanter common either.


Side note, Bards were also defined as Leaders in 4e. Ironically enough, Warlords could do Cheerleader much better

 

[CreamCloud0]

A big part, maybe the biggest part, is the fluff around the class...starting wit the over-the-top name...that defines the class as a Leader.

just focusing on this bit specifically, this feels like complaining that a hypothetical class named 'Master Smith' defines the class as a leader because it contains the word 'master', being a 'Warlord' in no way insinuates that the class/character is inherently superior than anyone else, people don't complain that Cleric's name insinuates they have some sort of divine authority and justification on their side.

 

[Micah Sweet]

just focusing on this bit specifically, this feels like complaining that a hypothetical class named 'Master Smith' defines the class as a leader because it contains the word 'master', being a 'Warlord' in no way insinuates that the class/character is inherently superior than anyone else, people don't complain that Cleric's name insinuates they have some sort of divine authority and justification on their side.

Rokugan d20 for 3e had just such a prestige class.

 

[pemerton]

Once again, please observe the difference between an explicitly written exception to the rule that the player decides what their character thinks and does, such as the written description and specific mechanics of a Charm spell, and a DM's arbitrary ruling when a NPC without such abilities talks at a PC.

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.

 

[pemerton]

I think that all sounds pretty nifty, actually.

Somewhat analogous to a D&D magic item forcing an alignment change, no?

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).

 

[pemerton]

For example, I'm not sure a Dragon's fear is technically magical, but Dragons themselves are fantasy creatures. So a Dragon's bellowing roar is a kind of magic. I would object to a DM that allowed any creature (a shopkeeper?) to attempt a bellowing roar, and on a lucky 20 impose a fear condition on PCs.

In the original AD&D OA (1985, from memory) both the Samurai and Kensai have a special ability (again from memory, I think it's 6th level for the former and 7th level for the latter) which lets them impose fear on 1HD creatures, via a mighty roar/shout.

Perhaps because I played quite a bit of OA, I've never really felt the force of latter-day complaints about departures from D&D norms, when it comes to these sorts of things. Eg Yakuza in OA also had a "contacts" special ability that has a loose resemblance to Circles and Relationships in BW and Torchbearer. I never saw the ability in play, but knowing of it perhaps inured me to the shock of later encounters with more sophisticated versions of the same idea.

 

[Bill Zebub]

just focusing on this bit specifically, this feels like complaining that a hypothetical class named 'Master Smith' defines the class as a leader because it contains the word 'master', being a 'Warlord' in no way insinuates that the class/character is inherently superior than anyone else, people don't complain that Cleric's name insinuates they have some sort of divine authority and justification on their side.

1. First of all, if there a class called "Master Smith" I would criticize that choice: it should be "Smith", and then maybe at a certain (high) level you get known as a Master Smith. Same issue with Warlord, imo.
2. Second, ask somebody to describe the features of a "Master Smith" and it's not going to be about their leadership capabilities, nor are cited archetypes from fiction/history going to be leaders.