NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Umbran]

I see the seduction example the same way: Sir Morgath, despite his resolution to remain faithful to his wife Elizabeth, finds himself simply unable to resist the charming and beautiful Lady Lorette; Sir Gerren, the day before he is to enter into a political marriage which it is agreed will remain unconsummated, throws care to the wind and enjoys a romp in the bushes with the same Lady.

The player doesn't always get to decide whether their PC, in actuality, lives up to the ideal or image they have for them.

With respect, forcing a PC to engage in carnal relations due to a die roll is pretty icky stuff. I don't really care if your personal way of dealing with rules calls for it, better sense should rule the day in some situations.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless, of course, the person is an NPC. Then they don't get a choice if the roll succeeds.

Unless there no chance of success or failure, in which case there is no roll.

Plus, that statement of yours is straight up wrong. They are choosing. I am simply letting the die roll indicate their choice since my agency isn't an issue with an NPC like it is with players and their PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unless there no chance of success or failure, in which case there is no roll.

Plus, that statement of yours is straight up wrong. They are choosing. I am simply letting the die roll indicate their choice since my agency isn't an issue with an NPC like it is with players and their PCs.

You don't think the DM should have agency over the characters they control?

 

[CreamCloud0]

In any case, I find in interesting, yet hard to understand, that you're so fine with mechanics that can dictate what the PCs want. We've talked several times about the importance of the players being able to set their own goals. But if NPCs can manipulate via social mechanics the wants of the PCs, then that undermines the player agency of setting the character's goals in a major way.

well the mechanics control the PCs in every other area of the game, so i feel like it's social encounters that are the odd one out/proud nail here. it's a dice roll that determines if a character can keep their footing, it's a dice roll that determines if a fear effect affects them, it's a dice roll that determines if the player can convince an NPC, so why is it only when NPCs are trying to convince a character that the player gets to go above the mechanics and establish their own narrative of their character?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not familiar with Exalted 2e, which is the system you mentioned upthread. But the issue you describe doesn't arise in the systems I've spoken about in this thread - Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, Marvel Heroic RP.

Before reading your post and writing this reply, I edited the post to which you replied - I added a bit more about how Torchbearer works, with a bit more actual play illustration.

Your example seems to be that the social rolls only rod the players of short term agency (whether we surrender now or not) not long term one? The former is also super bad. Whether to surrender or fight is an important choice with meaningful consequences, and one the players, not the dice, should decide. If a game robs me agency on such crucial moments, I don't want to play it.

Furthermore, I have hard time believing you regarding long term goals too. If a NPC lady can via mechanics cause a PC knight fall in love with them, then how does this not directly affect the goals the player is going to set? Certainly (especially in Arthurian milieu) this would rather directly lead to the knight trying to win the lady's favour.

So yeah, to me using mechanics like this severely undermines all your talk about player driven games and player agency. These are agency destroying mechanics of the worst kind.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You don't think the DM should have agency over the characters they control?

i wonder how long it would take 'because my agency' players to call bullcrap if GMs started ignoring their empassioned speeches and Persuasion 27 rolls by claiming their NPC's 'agency' and 'they weren't convinced by your argument' or found the PC's 'suspicious'

 

[TwoSix]

With respect, forcing a PC to engage n carnal relations due to a die roll is pretty icky stuff. I don't really care if your personal way of dealing with rules calls for it, better sense should rule the day in some situations.

"Better sense" is doing some unnecessary work there. I would certainly presume @pemerton knows his table well enough to know if such a narration would be problematic.

 

[payn]

Your example seems to be that the social rolls only rod the players of short term agency (whether we surrender now or not) not long term one? The former is also super bad. Whether to surrender or fight is an important choice with meaningful consequences, and one the players, not the dice, should decide. If a game robs me agency on such crucial moments, I don't want to play it.

Furthermore, I have hard time believing you regarding long term goals too. If a NPC lady can via mechanics cause a PC knight fall in love with them, then how does this not directly affect the goals the player is going to set? Certainly (especially in Arthurian milieu) this would rather directly lead to the knight trying to win the lady's favour.

So yeah, to me using mechanics like this severely undermines all your talk about player driven games and player agency. These are agency destroying mechanics of the wort kind.

Are you fine with magic cutting off short and long term agency?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

With respect, forcing a PC to engage n carnal relations due to a die roll is pretty icky stuff. I don't really care if your personal way of dealing with rules calls for it, better sense should rule the day in some situations.

Yes. Major ick. Imagine a male GM using this sort of mechanic on a female PC of a female player.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't think the DM should have agency over the characters they control?

I do to a degree anyway. I get to choose whether something will automatically succeed or fail. You don't get to even roll a die unless it's possible for the NPC to choose success or failure. By letting the die decide, I maaaaaaaaybe give up .01% of my agency over my NPCs, since I control many thousands of them.

By taking away the player's ability to choose and forcing the die roll on him, he loses 100% of his agency in that situation. If I had to give up 100%, I'd run a different game.