NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Sepulchrave II]

Because they are inherently different things.

I think this makes a bold assertion about the ontology of consciousness which cannot be taken as given, and makes a shaky foundation for your argument.

I think, in the real world, the most that any of us can do is say "If I'm confronted with situation X, I'd like to think that my response would be Y." We don't actually know how we'll react until we encounter the situation. This is especially true of fight-or-flight situations.

If I'm hiking in Yellowstone and I encounter a hungry Grizzly, I'd like to think that I'd make good choices to maximize my chances for survival. However, having never encountered a Grizzly (or, more importantly, that particular Grizzly at that particular moment), I can't say with certainty what my response would actually be - I might run away, immediately mark myself as prey, and invite a half-ton monster to easily catch and eat me. Any number of minor factors might contribute to my choice in the moment (did I sleep well? am I constipated? did I read scary book before I turned in last night? are my feet sore? etc).

We're complicated, and inconsistent in our responses. Our characters should be complicated too.

That said, I'm not sure that I'd necessarily look to the dice to decide those outcomes. Sometimes, maybe.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do the dice rolls to overcome the evil dragon feel so empty, too? Do you abandon them to just “feel the struggle” of the battle?

Luckily, in many games (D&D included) defeating the dragon is not just about the rolls, is about tactics, it is about the choices the players make during the combat. If it was just a roll, then there really wouldn't be agency.

In this case, it sounds like the woman getting pissed off was the consequence of a poor roll. Someone tried to schmooze her, did it poorly, and got the opposite reaction than what was hoped for.

Which has nothing to do with the topic of contention. No one has said rolls cannot affect how the NPCs react.

You’re blocking off all kinds of unwelcome results that are fundamental to people in the real world and to characters in fiction. No one’s emotions ever get the better of them? No one loses control?

And this is “deeper” or “more immersive”?

There’s no risk to your concept of the character. Nothing can happen unless you approve it. You can never learn that your character is someone other than who you wanted them to be.

All that can and does happen. It is just happens via putting the characters in unexpected situations and having players who are capable of replaying different personalities. And yes, it is deeper to actually immerse in the situations, inhabit the character, and have these reactions be authentically created by the situation and genuinely felt than just rolling the dice.

And from agency perspective I just don't get this. If you outsource the character's feeling, reactions, choices etc to the dice, then what do you even need the players for? I want to roleplay a character, not a random generate a story of said character. Now that is a bit of an exaggeration and I understand that people who play this way do not perceive it like this, but that's how it appears to me. It just is so weird to me that the same people who always talk about the importance of the player agency are perfectly fine with eroding said agency in this sort of major way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think this makes a bold assertion about the ontology of consciousness which cannot be taken as given, and makes a shaky foundation for your argument.

I think, in the real world, the most that any of us can do is say "If I'm confronted with situation X, I'd like to think that my response would be Y." We don't actually know how we'll react until we encounter the situation. This is especially true of fight-or-flight situations.

If I'm hiking in Yellowstone and I encounter a hungry Grizzly, I'd like to think that I'd make good choices to maximize my chances for survival. However, having never encountered a Grizzly (or, more importantly, that particular Grizzly at that particular moment), I can't say with certainty what my response would actually be - I might run away, immediately mark myself as prey, and invite a half-ton monster to easily catch and eat me. Any number of minor factors might contribute to my choice in the moment (did I sleep well? am I constipated? did I read scary book before I turned in last night? are my feet sore? etc).

We're complicated, and inconsistent in our responses. Our characters should be complicated too.

That said, I'm not sure that I'd necessarily look to the dice to decide those outcomes. Sometimes, maybe.

To continue my thought from my previous post, the basic structure of RPGs is that the GM describes the situations and the player tells how their character reacts to it and what they do. So here the situation is that a bear attacks you. And next it would be the player's turn to decide what they do about it... except it is suggested that instead the player doesn't get to decide that and we randomise it instead. At this point I would just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave, as I am obviously not needed for running this character.

 

[TwoSix]

To continue my thought from my previous post, the basic structure of RPGs is that the GM describes the situations and the player tells how their character reacts to it and what they do. So here the situation is that a bear attacks you. And next it would be the player's turn to decide what they do about it... except it is suggested that instead the player doesn't get to decide that and we randomise it instead. At this point I would just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave, as I am obviously not needed for running this character.

A problem here is that there’s no meaning or narrative attached to a random bear encounter.

Generally we wouldn’t expect a random bear encounter outside of a dungeon crawl or a pure sandbox. Maybe in Torchbearer, and then the party’s journey wouldn’t be random.

 

[payn]

Luckily, in many games (D&D included) defeating the dragon is not just about the rolls, is about tactics, it is about the choices the players make during the combat. If it was just a roll, then there really wouldn't be agency.



Which has nothing to do with the topic of contention. No one has said rolls cannot affect how the NPCs react.



All that can and does happen. It is just happens via putting the characters in unexpected situations and having players who are capable of replaying different personalities. And yes, it is deeper to actually immerse in the situations, inhabit the character, and have these reactions be authentically created by the situation and genuinely felt than just rolling the dice.

And from agency perspective I just don't get this. If you outsource the character's feeling, reactions, choices etc to the dice, then what do you even need the players for? I want to roleplay a character, not a random generate a story of said character. Now that is a bit of an exaggeration and I understand that people who play this way do not perceive it like this, but that's how it appears to me. It just is so weird to me that the same people who always talk about the importance of the player agency are perfectly fine with eroding said agency in this sort of major way.

There is also tactical choices in social situations the players engage, its not simply given to the dice as you say.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Your problem is that when you say “I know how my character would react to X” your X equals everything.

That’s not how people work.

Neither do we have dice rolling around in our heads telling us what to do. God save us from RPGs that are meant to accurately simulate human brain activity.

 

[payn]

Neither do we have dice rolling around in our heads telling us what to do. God save us from RPGs that are meant to accurately simulate human brain activity.

When have they ever done that exactly?

 

[Bill Zebub]

We're complicated, and inconsistent in our responses. Our characters should be complicated too.

That said, I'm not sure that I'd necessarily look to the dice to decide those outcomes. Sometimes, maybe.

Yes, exactly. And I for one want to leave it to others to decide how to express that complicatedness for their own characters. Some of them may not make the same decisions I would, and some of them may want to let dice guide them, but their characters are not my characters.

 

[Bill Zebub]

When have they ever done that exactly?

I'm not saying they have, but some of the arguments being presented seem to suggest that's the ideal.

 

[Maxperson]

They’re not different. They are things that are not entirely up to the person.

Your problem is that when you say “I know how my character would react to X” your X equals everything.

That’s not how people work.

It's not called self-control for nothing.