NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Theory of Games]

It would not be great storytelling if it was NPC saying "revenge is dumb" and rolling 30 on their persuasion check. Great storytelling would require you actually tell the story, to have the NPC make an argument that connects with the experiences and beliefs of the PC. And to me what the PC decides to do on such an important occasion is absolutely something the player gets to decide. Such big thematic decisions about the core of the character, their beliefs and drives are to me among the best things in RPGs and outsourcing such to the dice seems like utter madness to me. I would not play in a game that did that.

You don't roll the dice for this sort of stuff. It is the player's choice to make.

"You" don't roll dice for that, but each table is different in one way or another. At my table, NPCs can (with a successful roll) intimidate, persuade and deceive PCs. In those situations, the players' agency is limited in the same way weapon damage or magic can limit agency.

But again, each table is different in one way or another

 

[Micah Sweet]

That the NPCs being able to use social mechanics to influence the desires and beliefs of PCs limits the player agency over the goals* of their character is a fact. Whether one considers that to be a problem, is a matter of preference.

(*Both short and long term.)

You didn't say it limits it. You said you can't set goals if the mechanics allow them to be changed without the player's consent.

 

[FrogReaver]

I not talking about the loss of completely free choice. I'm talking about the loss of all choice.

The only way to let a player of any mental or social skill or trait play a character of any mental or social skill or trait is take all volition and agency from the player. This is an absolute truth.

The player still must choose to use the character skills in a given situation. He still must act on the information given. There’s still agency there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You didn't say it limits it. You said you can't set goals if the mechanics allow them to be changed without the player's consent.

I literally didn't:

Ok. I wouldn't. Like not at all.

But this certainly is a matter we can agree to disagree on, as long as we can agree on what is actually happening: the mechanics are dictating the player goals. It is a matter of taste whether one finds this acceptable.

That mechanics can dictate the player goals doesn't mean the player could not have set the initial goals.
Also, I don't get where you're going with this nit-picking. It doesn't really affect the overall point: the agency is diminished in a manner I find unacceptable.

 

[TwoSix]

You didn't say it limits it. You said you can't set goals if the mechanics allow them to be changed without the player's consent.

My goal was to play a human fighter, but reincarnation made me play a centaur instead.

 

[FrogReaver]

That the NPCs being able to use social mechanics to influence the desires and beliefs of PCs limits the player agency over the goals* of their character is a fact. Whether one considers that to be a problem, is a matter of preference.

(*Both short and long term.)

I follow your point here, but I’m not sure ‘limits player agency by rules’ is a meaningful objection in a hobby that relies on rules and social contracts to limit player agency in order to have a game at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I follow your point here, but I’m not sure ‘limits player agency by rules’ is a meaningful objection in a hobby that relies on rules and social contracts to limit player agency in order to have a game at all.

I think it is. We have had plenty of talk about agency. Some people are fine with less, and some people desire it on specific areas and not so much in others. To me the agency to decide the desires and goals of my character is central. If some people don't feel the same way, then that's their prerogative.

But ultimately the core play loop of RPG is the GM presenting the situation and the players deciding what their characters want to do, then the GM describing how the situation is altered by what the character does. If we insert mechanics that decide what the characters want instead of the players deciding it, then it sorta makes the players unnecessary.

 

[payn]

I think it is. We have had plenty of talk about agency. Some people are fine with less, and some people desire it on specific areas and not so much in others. To me the agency to decide the desires and goals of my character is central. If some people don't feel the same way, then that's their prerogative.

But ultimately the core play loop of RPG is the GM presenting the situation and the players deciding what their characters want to do, then the GM describing how the situation is altered by what the character does. If we insert mechanics that decide what the characters want instead of the players deciding it, then it sorta makes the players unnecessary.

Thats a big leap. This disregards magic mechanics, which yes I understand you change for your table. Though, PCs still have agency in the face of adversity of obstacles and confusion sown by elements of the game. Just becasue you dont get to directly dictate every single aspect of every single moment for a character, doesnt mean your agency is lost in any meaningful manner. You still get to play a confused or mislead character. You can still reach that goal despite a set back.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I literally didn't:



That mechanics can dictate the player goals doesn't mean the player could not have set the initial goals.
Also, I don't get where you're going with this nit-picking. It doesn't really affect the overall point: the agency is diminished in a manner I find unacceptable.

That's an agree to disagree situation, based on personal preference. If we all agree to that, what more is there to say?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it is. We have had plenty of talk about agency. Some people are fine with less, and some people desire it on specific areas and not so much in others. To me the agency to decide the desires and goals of my character is central. If some people don't feel the same way, then that's their prerogative.

But ultimately the core play loop of RPG is the GM presenting the situation and the players deciding what their characters want to do, then the GM describing how the situation is altered by what the character does. If we insert mechanics that decide what the characters want instead of the players deciding it, then it sorta makes the players unnecessary.

If what you say was absolute under all circumstances, I'd agree with you. But, of course it isn't.