NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, that sounds like a potentially fun (but brief) adventure interlude. Foul sorcery has ensnared Sir Ensilmore's heart! Can he break free from the enchantment, using what means of resistance are available to him within the confines of the spell? ("I have to make the Faerie Queene happy, so I'll go and squeeze tribute out of the monasteries as she asks. But, while I'm at it, I'll go visit the Witch of Eastwood to see if she has a potion that might dispel this curse. But, O, I hope the Faerie Queene doesn't ask me about it, or I'll be compelled to tell her!")

Of course, the trick is in recognizing and accepting that the feeling of love is an imposition, rather than just assuming that Sir Ensilmore will go along with it because it fits the GM's pre-scripted assumption for the way the story is "supposed" to go.

Regarding the original example, it was not spell, it was just normal love. But in either case, and regardless of whether one would find it fun, it certainly is an imposition on player's agency over their character's goals.

 

[Oryzarius]

Regarding the original example, it was not spell, it was just normal love. But in either case, and regardless of whether one would find it fun, it certainly is an imposition on player's agency over their character's goals.

I find myself agreeing with you on most points in this discussion. And I think mind control has to be used very, very carefully in RPGs, for exactly the reason that you describe. Having a referee who unilaterally describes a PC's emotional reaction to a mundane stimulus is right out.

But having your PC fall into a pit is also an imposition on your agency over their goals. So is being opposed by goblins, when your goal is simply to take their treasure. I don't really mean to straw-man you (even though that's admittedly what I'm doing), but I'm curious about where. you see the line between meaningful challenge to a PC and inappropriate thwarting of agency.

 

[Oryzarius]

And given the online environment, are there really that many deserts?

I have encountered many older and/or casual players who are simply unwilling to play online, for a variety of reasons.

Obviously, they're less well represented online, but they still exist.

 

[payn]

I have encountered many older and/or casual players who are simply unwilling to play online, for a variety of reasons.

Obviously, they're less well represented online, but they still exist.

Can’t help those who choose the desert.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I find myself agreeing with you on most points in this discussion. And I think mind control has to be used very, very carefully in RPGs, for exactly the reason that you describe. Having a referee who unilaterally describes a PC's emotional reaction to a mundane stimulus is right out.

But having your PC fall into a pit is also an imposition on your agency over their goals. So is being opposed by goblins, when your goal is simply to take their treasure. I don't really mean to straw-man you (even though that's admittedly what I'm doing), but I'm curious about where. you see the line between meaningful challenge to a PC and inappropriate thwarting of agency.

The sort of things you mention limit what the character can do. But if the thing affects character's emotions or volition, it will affect what they want to do. I think this is big difference. The former is an obstacle on the way to your goal, whilst the latter will affect what sort of goal you will pursue. If goblins block you from getting their treasure, you can come up with ways to circumvent, trick or even defeat those goblins. But if goblins compel you to believe that you actually don't want their treasure because materialism is not the true path to the happiness, then you will no longer pursue their treasure.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have encountered many older and/or casual players who are simply unwilling to play online, for a variety of reasons.

Obviously, they're less well represented online, but they still exist.

Hi! Yeah, I don't play online. I think it is significantly inferior experience to playing live. Granted, I have the option to play live, and if I didn't I might grudgingly reconsider my position. But I'm not sure. It just isn't the same.

 

[pemerton]

To me, "agency" entirely involves freedom of choice. If the players are portraying an agency of private detectives, they should have the choice of whether or not to take a case from a client: doing so just because it's the only plotline that the GM has cooked up for the night may be friendly, but may also be disruptive to whatever narrative experience they're seeking from the game.

The particular approach that you describe here will make the typical mystery RPG of the sort that @Crimson Longinus described upthread collapse completely. Because the GM will not have authored an infinite number of mystery plots.

If a RPG rests on a premise, then all the participants have to be on board or the game won't go. It's another weird quirk of RPGing that there is often a tendency to pretend that there is no premise, and then to use non-formal social cues to actually make sure the premise is adhered to - like, instead of the GM saying "OK, here's tonight's adventure" the GM has a NPC turn up (the "quest giver") and then the players are expected to follow the social convention of not ignoring the GM's adventure hook.

In Moldvay Basic the session starts at the dungeon entrance, and I think there is a lot of elegance to that. No faffing around!

Yet others may appreciate the story as an actor might, immersively, feeling a Stanislavskian-style response to the experiences of their own character.

This sort of feeling is more of a performer's feeling than an author's feeling, I think. At least in the following sense - if an actor in this style is told that now your character is horrified or now your character is infatuated, they are ready to do the work to incorporate that into their conception of the character.

 

[MGibster]

Some folks are spoiled for choice; others live in gaming deserts. As the maxim goes, even bad pizza is still pizza. (Though I think the pizza was originally supposed to be sex.)

I, uh, don't think I'm going to your house for pizza.

One of the things I like about 5E was the introduction of Advantage. For social encounters, when the PCs do or say something that resonates with an NPC, I'll give them Advantage on the roll. In my last session, the PCs were trying to convince an NPC to keep quiet about how exactly her bar was destroyed and offered her an obscene amount of money. This NPC was motivated by greed, so I have the PC Advantage on their Persuasion roll for her to keep quiet. Good times.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I find the idea of a PC’s feelings/emotions being entirely beyond influence from rules to be quite the opposite of immersive, or inhabitation.

PCs are fictional constructs. Often, we build them ahead of play. Sometimes, entirely, depending on the game and play expectations. We already know what the PC would and wouldn’t do in a given situation before they’re ever actually in that situation.

But that’s not how actual people work.

Sure, people may have beliefs or standards or similar qualities that may allow us to imagine how they’d react in a given circumstance. But we will never know if we are correct until they are in that circumstance and take action.

Actual people can be incredibly surprising.

To remove that element of surprise… that ability to be unsure, to get to some decision point and realize “oh, no… I’m not actually gonna do what everyone thinks I’m gonna do”… take that away, and I don’t know what it is the player is “immersing into” or “inhabiting”.

It seems more like a costume than a character.

I think when you’re free to control a PC’s emotions and reactions 100% of the time without input from the rules, and you’ve largely decided ahead of time exactly who this character is, what you’re really doing is “portraying” rather than immersing or inhabiting. You’re acting as the character and making decisions based on who you’ve already decided they are.

Without some amount of discovery through play… without the player learning about the character during play… I don’t really see inhabitation as possible.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The particular approach that you describe here will make the typical mystery RPG of the sort that @Crimson Longinus described upthread collapse completely. Because the GM will not have authored an infinite number of mystery plots.

If a RPG rests on a premise, then all the participants have to be on board or the game won't go. It's another weird quirk of RPGing that there is often a tendency to pretend that there is no premise, and then to use non-formal social cues to actually make sure the premise is adhered to - like, instead of the GM saying "OK, here's tonight's adventure" the GM has a NPC turn up (the "quest giver") and then the players are expected to follow the social convention of not ignoring the GM's adventure hook.

In Moldvay Basic the session starts at the dungeon entrance, and I think there is a lot of elegance to that. No faffing around!

I totally agree with you on the premise thing. However, in some games the possibility for the players to choose what to engage with is part of the premise. And how I personally address the practical issues you mention that arise from this, is that I'll try to establish at the end of the session what the players wish to pursue on the next, so I can prepare accordingly.

This sort of feeling is more of a performer's feeling than an author's feeling, I think. At least in the following sense - if an actor in this style is told that now your character is horrified or now your character is infatuated, they are ready to do the work to incorporate that into their conception of the character.

It's not that simple. Actors often feel uncomfortable if they feel a character they portray and are very familiar with is suddenly written in a manner that does not fit their understanding of the character. Emilia Clarke was very upset about how Daenerys was written for the last season of Game of Thrones. It took her two weeks to get over it and get to right headspace to portray the character. And she's a highly skilled professional. Obviously she did it, as it is her job. But in a game I don't have two weeks to mull over the dice results. And sure, if you pay me half a million per game like Clarke was paid per episode of GoT to pretend that I am in love with your NPC because the dice said so, I will certainly do it! But I won't do it for fun as it is not fun for me.