A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

This rests on the conceit that a prep GM will be faithful to the established fiction while an improvisational GM will not be. That's the issue -- you're assigning virtue to one and denying it to the other.

In the example 'established fiction' it that the NPC said a thing. This doesn't change. What has not been established is the NPC's motivation for saying the thing.

When improvising and then tying things together later, you sometimes might have to reframe certain things that happened earlier, and if you do it well, it may appear as genius foreshadowing. "Oh naughty word, that crazy travelling cartographer we met three weeks ago had the similar glassed over eyes than these mind-controlled pawns of Prince Draculus! He was one of them!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t see how a GM who’s prepped a NPC must be any more faithful to his prep than a GM who has improvised a NPC must be faithful to what’s been improvised.

The example is very minimal, and I think the particulars of the encounter in which a NPC has said whatever was said matters quite a lot. What was said? Was it simply accepted at face value? Were chances allowed to determine if it was true? Were those attempts unsuccessful? Did the PCs later hear some conflicting info from another NPC? Were they given the opportunity at that point to question the conflicting info? These things matter.

What prompted the GM to change their mind? Was it the emerging fiction? Was it a consequence of a failed check of some sort? Are there GM principles in play that would discourage such a change? These also matter quite a lot.

I don’t think that the example given of “NPC said a thing that the GM later decided was false” is complete enough. If anything, without knowing the answers to all the questions above, it simply looks like a case of poor GMing regardless of prep or improv.

 

[prabe]

I don’t see how a GM who’s prepped a NPC must be any more faithful to his prep than a GM who has improvised a NPC must be faithful to what’s been improvised.

My own rule is that what happens next needs to be consistent with what has happened. If an NPC said or did something, that'll remain in the fiction, but the motivation might change--though if they're giving the party false information it's more likely to be because the NPC has been misinformed rather than because they're setting out to betray the party. In principle, if I've prepped something to happen in the absence of PC action, I then treat it as having happened--but I'm willing to change it if A) the party hasn't really encountered those "facts," B) I can remain consistent with what the party has encountered, and C) it causes/allows a better story to emerge.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My own rule is that what happens next needs to be consistent with what has happened. If an NPC said or did something, that'll remain in the fiction, but the motivation might change--though if they're giving the party false information it's more likely to be because the NPC has been misinformed rather than because they're setting out to betray the party. In principle, if I've prepped something to happen in the absence of PC action, I then treat it as having happened--but I'm willing to change it if A) the party hasn't really encountered those "facts," B) I can remain consistent with what the party has encountered, and C) it causes/allows a better story to emerge.

That’s all reasonable.

How would you handle the case of a NPC having lied to the PCs? Let’s say that whatever was said by the NPC was meant to be true from the GM’s perspective at the time os was said. Under what circumstances would you change that truth to a lie? I get your A, B, and C above....I think I’m mostly interested in an example of C, and if it can be accomplished in some way that doesn’t inhibit agency.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I don’t see how a GM who’s prepped a NPC must be any more faithful to his prep than a GM who has improvised a NPC must be faithful to what’s been improvised.

The example is very minimal, and I think the particulars of the encounter in which a NPC has said whatever was said matters quite a lot. What was said? Was it simply accepted at face value? Were chances allowed to determine if it was true? Were those attempts unsuccessful? Did the PCs later hear some conflicting info from another NPC? Were they given the opportunity at that point to question the conflicting info? These things matter.

What prompted the GM to change their mind? Was it the emerging fiction? Was it a consequence of a failed check of some sort? Are there GM principles in play that would discourage such a change? These also matter quite a lot.

I don’t think that the example given of “NPC said a thing that the GM later decided was false” is complete enough. If anything, without knowing the answers to all the questions above, it simply looks like a case of poor GMing regardless of prep or improv.

It was just an example as to what might happen at the table. As for the details of the scene where the PCs interacted with the NPC, there are none, as it was just an example of what might happen. Just a thought project to gauge where I am in offering my players meaningful informed choices so I can ensure they have agency to act within the narrative.

So let's keep thought projecting!

For the purposes of this thought project details such as the reasons why the GM might change the truth of what the NPC said really don't matter. The GM might have decided it was better for the story, or the GM is just being a jerk. You decide!

Anyway, on to the thought project!

A) The NPC was telling the truth, but then the GM changed that fact later.

B) The NPC was lying but the players bought the lie and didn't bother to check to see if the NPC was lying.

C) The NPC was lying, the players thought the NPC was lying, but failed their "detect lies" roll so the PCs bought the lie.

Which example(s) are illusionism? Which example(s) deny the players agency? Which example(s) DO NOT deny the players agency?

 

[prabe]

That’s all reasonable.

How would you handle the case of a NPC having lied to the PCs? Let’s say that whatever was said by the NPC was meant to be true from the GM’s perspective at the time os was said. Under what circumstances would you change that truth to a lie? I get your A, B, and C above....I think I’m mostly interested in an example of C, and if it can be accomplished in some way that doesn’t inhibit agency.

I think how I'd handle it would depend on the nature of the lie. If the NPC lied to the PCs about facts on the ground, I'd try to give the PCs an opportunity to learn the facts were different before acting on the misinformation. As to a situation where I'd do it? The only thing I can think of would be if I somehow prepped myself into a paradox, and something I'd thought was true couldn't be; I'd probably decide what "fact" wasn't true and give the PCs a chance to figure out what wasn't true, and plausibly give them a way to figure out if it was an intentional act on the NPC's part. (I don't much care for betrayals in fiction, so I'm very reluctant to deploy them as a GM.)

 

[prabe]

Anyway, on to the thought project!

A) The NPC was telling the truth, but then the GM changed that fact later.

B) The NPC was lying but the players bought the lie and didn't bother to check to see if the NPC was lying.

C) The NPC was lying, the players thought the NPC was lying, but failed their "detect lies" roll so the PCs bought the lie.

Which example(s) are illusionism? Which example(s) deny the players agency? Which example(s) DO NOT deny the players agency?

None of those three strictly needs to be illusionism, but the only one that seems likely to lead down that dark path (and forever dominate the GM's destiny) is your A. It's plausible--though you're leaving the GM's motivations out of it--that something arose in prep and something needed to change; in that case, I'd say the GM is as much a victim of the illusionism as the players ...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Which example(s) are illusionism? Which example(s) deny the players agency? Which example(s) DO NOT deny the players agency?

I don’t know if we can ignore why the GM has made the changes as you say. I think those reasons could potentially greatly influence player agency.

A) The NPC was telling the truth, but then the GM changed that fact later.

Like here. I need to know the details for why and what it was, the existing details in the fiction (is this NPC trusted by the PCs or someone they’ve just met, etc) and other details.

Without some details that justify this decision, it seems questionable to me.

B) The NPC was lying but the players bought the lie and didn't bother to check to see if the NPC was lying.

This seems acceptable in general. But again, the relationship between this NPC and the PCs is crucial. Is this the equivalent of Gandalf turning out to have lied to Frodo? Or is it someone they’ve just met? Did the GM prompt them in any way to either accept or challenge this information?

C) The NPC was lying, the players thought the NPC was lying, but failed their "detect lies" roll so the PCs bought the lie.

This would seem fine to me. The dice have determined the consequence. When the GM reveals the lie, he can point to the roll where the PCs had a chance to detect it and failed.

I think the absence of this specific cause is what makes A and B more questionable. When the players ask why, there isn’t some neutral point of arbitration to cite. All the GM has to explain is vague notions along the lines of “I thought it’d be cool” or similar.

That being said, again I think that many other factors can come into play here.

 

[zarionofarabel]

None of those three strictly needs to be illusionism, but the only one that seems likely to lead down that dark path (and forever dominate the GM's destiny) is your A. It's plausible--though you're leaving the GM's motivations out of it--that something arose in prep and something needed to change; in that case, I'd say the GM is as much a victim of the illusionism as the players ...

I don’t know if we can ignore why the GM has made the changes as you say. I think those reasons could potentially greatly influence player agency.

Like here. I need to know the details for why and what it was, the existing details in the fiction (is this NPC trusted by the PCs or someone they’ve just met, etc) and other details.

Without some details that justify this decision, it seems questionable to me.

This seems acceptable in general. But again, the relationship between this NPC and the PCs is crucial. Is this the equivalent of Gandalf turning out to have lied to Frodo? Or is it someone they’ve just met? Did the GM prompt them in any way to either accept or challenge this information?

This would seem fine to me. The dice have determined the consequence. When the GM reveals the lie, he can point to the roll where the PCs had a chance to detect it and failed.

I think the absence of this specific cause is what makes A and B more questionable. When the players ask why, there isn’t some neutral point of arbitration to cite. All the GM has to explain is vague notions along the lines of “I thought it’d be cool” or similar.

That being said, again I think that many other factors can come into play here.

So, what factors would make it illusionism? What factors would make it so the players retain their agency?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was just an example as to what might happen at the table. As for the details of the scene where the PCs interacted with the NPC, there are none, as it was just an example of what might happen. Just a thought project to gauge where I am in offering my players meaningful informed choices so I can ensure they have agency to act within the narrative.

So let's keep thought projecting!

For the purposes of this thought project details such as the reasons why the GM might change the truth of what the NPC said really don't matter. The GM might have decided it was better for the story, or the GM is just being a jerk. You decide!

Anyway, on to the thought project!

A) The NPC was telling the truth, but then the GM changed that fact later.

B) The NPC was lying but the players bought the lie and didn't bother to check to see if the NPC was lying.

C) The NPC was lying, the players thought the NPC was lying, but failed their "detect lies" roll so the PCs bought the lie.

Which example(s) are illusionism? Which example(s) deny the players agency? Which example(s) DO NOT deny the players agency?

A can be illusionism, but also might not, depending on outcome. The issue with A is that any decisions the PCs made during the interaction end in the same result -- the NPC lied and the players believed them.

B is not illusionism, or even any reduction in agency. The players had the option to try to detect falsehood and did not. However, if the GM downplayed any tells and played up the veracity of the NPC, then it's teetering on the edge of Force anyway.

C is not illusionism, nor a reduction in agency, provided the failed check was fairly handled. Failure has consequences, and that's a fine one. Agency doesn't involved success, it involves choice. Here the players made the choice, but failed the execution. That's perfectly fine, agency-wise. The way this could slid towards Force is if the GM doesn't provide a fair check, either through overly high DC setting (for games that feature such) or overriding outcomes (not honoring the roll) or by calling for multiple checks and stopping on a failure.