Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7743357" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, they're not, because when the player snares in combat, PC death is staked as part of that decision.  I  The other hand, players don't stake believing the Prince on the outcome of the Prince's persuasion check.  If you have an is situation where the players have staked this, then, okay, all good.The real crux of my argument is based upon what the players know are the stakes.  Meeting an NPC doesn't usually involve staking that you will believe the NPC and agree with them if they roll a high enough skill check.  Getting into combat does stake PC death (or not, depending on the system and for a system that doesn't stake PC death in combat, our would be a bad play to kill a PC).  If you're handling social engagements by seeing explicit stakes on NPC rolls and the players have opt into that stake setting, all goid, agency is not infringed.  If the DM is unilaterally seeing stakes and conducting the resolution, agency is being needlessly infringed.  I've yet to see a concrete example of where agency being infringed led to a better outcome than not infringing.  You've claimed this is so, but not shown your work.And, again, listing all the ways that a GM could infringe agency is not an argument for why they should.</blockquote>