NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think it is a game design issue in a sense that some things are far more liable to cause issues than some others. And to me it is blindingly obvious that "incite lust" roll (or something similar) that compels a character to act accordingly is solidly in the "more likely" end of things.

Eh, I certainly don't have any intention of questioning anyone's preferences. I'm a lot less sure about leaping to conclusions about the preferences and sensibilities of an entire community as large and diverse as RPGers...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Eh, I certainly don't have any intention of questioning anyone's preferences. I'm a lot less sure about leaping to conclusions about the preferences and sensibilities of an entire community as large and diverse as RPGers...

"Entire community" is doing some heavy lifting here, however. I don't have to think everyone will have an issue with something, or even that there may not be non-trivial exceptions to have developed opinions about what a simple majority will. I have little evidence that I'm living in a bubble sufficient to prevent that.

 

[Maxperson]

Thus, asking for perfect agency over the character we're inhabiting in a TTRPG feels more alien than the system resolution assigning involuntary experiences to our characters.

It feels more like real life that my character (and my inhabitation of such) got angry just because rather than choosing to act out my character as being angry.

There are things that might make you angry that would never make me angry and vice versa. Losing my agency over my PC means that there are things that I know would never make him angry that he would be forced to get angry over if they came up and the resolution process is involuntary.

Neither method is going to be perfect, but I would rather control when my PC gets angry and doesn't and avoid him being forced to act against character by a DM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Entire community" is doing some heavy lifting here, however. I don't have to think everyone will have an issue with something, or even that there may not be non-trivial exceptions to have developed opinions about what a simple majority will. I have little evidence that I'm living in a bubble sufficient to prevent that.

Well, some very general statements were made about what was unacceptable in, by my reading, any RPG whatsoever without some sort of special dispensation. All I pointed out was that this is not universal, and by example extreme violence, which seems not to have been included in that, is really no less shocking, personal, or socially acceptable than romance, which is in fact a MUCH more common human experience!

I honestly don't think that, assuming you presented them both in a fairly non-graphic way, one is actually less likely to be accepted than the other. Honestly I think the prevalence of violence is a legacy of D&D's roots in wargames and the consequent association of game objectives with character depiction/RP by way of skilled play concepts.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are things that might make you angry that would never make me angry and vice versa. Losing my agency over my PC means that there are things that I know would never make him angry that he would be forced to get angry over if they came up and the resolution process is involuntary.

Neither method is going to be perfect, but I would rather control when my PC gets angry and doesn't and avoid him being forced to act against character by a DM.

So you're saying you essentially always RP a character that is yourself, just in the guise of some wizard or superhero or whatever? I get it, though I have to point out that @pemerton and others observations about the inadequacy or lack of verisimilitude in this "I am totally in control at all times" paradigm can be an issue...

 

[TwoSix]

There are things that might make you angry that would never make me angry and vice versa. Losing my agency over my PC means that there are things that I know would never make him angry that he would be forced to get angry over if they came up and the resolution process is involuntary.

Neither method is going to be perfect, but I would rather control when my PC gets angry and doesn't and avoid him being forced to act against character by a DM.

And all things being equal, I'd rather the opposite. (Although I would frame it as the resolution method impelling me to act, not the DM. It shouldn't be decided by DM fiat.)

 

[Maxperson]

So you're saying you essentially always RP a character that is yourself, just in the guise of some wizard or superhero or whatever? I get it, though I have to point out that @pemerton and others observations about the inadequacy or lack of verisimilitude in this "I am totally in control at all times" paradigm can be an issue...

No. I'm saying I create a personality and experiences for my PC and sometimes I KNOW 100% how he would react to something based on that and my vision for him. Sometimes not.

 

[Oryzarius]

To me, part of this discussion speaks to the weakness (note that I did not say "inadequacy"!) of D&D as a role-playing system.

In a game with a more nuanced character-creation system (like, say, GURPS, Hero, Savage Worlds, FATE, etc.), a player can take "disadvantages" or "flaws" or "troubles" in return for more resources to spend on "positive" abilities. If I design a character with the Lecherousness disadvantage, then that's pretty much an invitation to the GM that I'm willing for my character to both seduce and be seduced. If the character was created with an Addiction, then it's going to be harder to say "No" when an NPC interrupts plans with a suggestion for an appropriate party. True, D&D in recent editions certainly comes with a nod to "Ideals" and "Bonds" and "Flaws", but they're fairly vestigial in both attention and effect.

Players respond to incentives. If you've paid for some of your abilities by accepting a vulnerability, then it's not really a violation of player agency to have that vulnerability "called in" during play. (Obviously, if it starts happening in every encounter of every session, then it's gone too far.). If you know you'll lose experience points for not playing to your disadvantages, you're likely to more readily accept dramatic action that invokes them. And, if you really, really don't want to cede any character control, then simply don't take any disadvantages... but be aware that players who do take on such narrative "hooks" will be rewarded for offering more such opportunities for dramatic texture.

Yes, players shouldn't be "triggered" by unwanted or inappropriate intrusions on their character control. But there's a vast middle ground between a complete loss of player agency and a complete lack of challenges to it.

 

[Maxperson]

And all things being equal, I'd rather the opposite. (Although I would frame it as the resolution method impelling me to act, not the DM. It shouldn't be decided by DM fiat.)

Being forced to act out of character shouldn't happen at all without magic(or the equivalent) mind control.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To me, part of this discussion speaks to the weakness (note that I did not say "inadequacy"!) of D&D as a role-playing system.

In a game with a more nuanced character-creation system (like, say, GURPS, Hero, Savage Worlds, FATE, etc.), a player can take "disadvantages" or "flaws" or "troubles" in return for more resources to spend on "positive" abilities. If I design a character with the Lecherousness disadvantage, then that's pretty much an invitation to the GM that I'm willing for my character to both seduce and be seduced. If the character was created with an Addiction, then it's going to be harder to say "No" when an NPC interrupts plans with a suggestion for an appropriate party. True, D&D in recent editions certainly comes with a nod to "Ideals" and "Bonds" and "Flaws", but they're fairly vestigial in both attention and effect.

Players respond to incentives. If you've paid for some of your abilities by accepting a vulnerability, then it's not really a violation of player agency to have that vulnerability "called in" during play. (Obviously, if it starts happening in every encounter of every session, then it's gone too far.). If you know you'll lose experience points for not playing to your disadvantages, you're likely to more readily accept dramatic action that invokes them. And, if you really, really don't want to cede any character control, then simply don't take any disadvantages... but be aware that players who do take on such narrative "hooks" will be rewarded for offering more such opportunities for dramatic texture.

Yes, players shouldn't be "triggered" by unwanted or inappropriate intrusions on their character control. But there's a vast middle ground between a complete loss of player agency and a complete lack of challenges to it.

Like you suggest one way to do this sort of thing that the player is rewarded some way playing their flaws, be it with XP inspiration, fate points etc. It is still their choice whether to do it, but there is an incentive. Many games do this, and to me it is far superior to the method where the character is compelled to behave in certain way. I'm still not a huge fan, I find such bribery unnecessary, but it is not offensive to me.