NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[pemerton]

But did the players have an option to not to surrender? Can the character say, "ef this, I rather fight these mofos" and attack?

As I've already posted, I think in reply to you, the players chose to initiate a Trickery conflict rather than a Kill (or Drive Off, or Capture) conflict. So they had ensured that the death of their PCs, or the risk of being driven back into the swamp, was not on the line.

Having initiated the conflict, they knew they were bound by its outcome.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I've already posted, I think in reply to you, the players chose to initiate a Trickery conflict rather than a Kill (or Drive Off, or Capture) conflict. So they had ensured that the death of their PCs, or the risk of being driven back into the swamp, was not on the line.

Having initiated the conflict, they knew they were bound by its outcome.

That does not seem like a decision characters could do, whilst deciding to escalate into a fight after a failed negotiation would. This game of yours doesn't seem like roleplaying to me, in a sense that it would be making decisions from the PoV of the character, it seems more like making decisions about mechanics which then produce a story about the character.

So yes, this game seems to severely curtail the players' agency to roleplay their character, which is the sort of agency I primarily care about in a roleplaying game. It might compensate by giving players more meta agency over things outside of the characters, but that is not the sort of agency I care for.

 

[payn]

That does not seem like a decision characters could do, whilst deciding to escalate into a fight after a failed negotiation would. This game of yours doesn't seem like roleplaying to me, in a sense that it would be making decisions from the PoV of the character, it seems more like making decisions about mechanics which then produce a story about the character.

So yes, this game seems to severely curtail the players' agency to roleplay their character, which is the sort of agency I primarily care about in a roleplaying game. It might compensate by giving players more meta agency over things outside of the characters, but that is not the sort of agency I care for.

What you care about in role playing is important to you, but it does not define role playing in general.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What you care about in role playing is important to you, but it does not define role playing in general.

I did not mean that it is not a roleplaying game or that no roleplaying would take place at all. But there are parts in these games where we are playing the role, assuming the persona of the character. Based on that example it seems to me agency relating to that was limited in that game and the players were making impactful decisions outside of that stance instead. Now whether one thinks this is a good or a bad thing is obviously a matter of taste.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I did not mean that it is not a roleplaying game or that no roleplaying would take place at all. But there are parts in these games where we are playing the role, assuming the persona of the character. Based on that example it seems to me agency relating to that was limited in that game and the players were making impactful decisions outside of that stance instead. Now whether one thinks this is a good or a bad thing is obviously a matter of taste.

Yeah, this is how I feel about it, too. The game pemerton describes is certainly a roleplaying game, but is also really quite alien to what I think of as a roleplaying game, and although it's interesting it's just not to my taste.

I think what you said earlier about agency is getting to the difference. There are, I think, two definitions of "agency" that people use:

1. The ability for their decisions to impact the game world
2. The ability for players to make decisions for their character

It seems to me that Torchbearer gives players more of Type 1, but at the cost of less Type 2. I wouldn't say the Type 2 is "taken away" since the players are agreeing to it, or even proposing it, but nevertheless it constrains their choices.

What's interesting is that the Type 1 agency is really being granted to the player, not just to the character. The player gets to make decisions (or give input) that affects the state of the game world, but not directly through the actions of their characters. They get to participate in framing the scene, which in other RPG is exclusively the purview of the GM.

So, a devil's deal: you get some GM-like powers, but in return you agree to constrain your character choices.

Or maybe I'm STILL not understanding this game....

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, this is how I feel about it, too. The game pemerton describes is certainly a roleplaying game, but is also really quite alien to what I think of as a roleplaying game, and although it's interesting it's just not to my taste.

I think what you said earlier about agency is getting to the difference. There are, I think, two definitions of "agency" that people use:

1. The ability for their decisions to impact the game world
2. The ability for players to make decisions for their character

It seems to me that Torchbearer gives players more of Type 1, but at the cost of less Type 2. I wouldn't say the Type 2 is "taken away" since the players are agreeing to it, or even proposing it, but nevertheless it constrains their choices.

What's interesting is that the Type 1 agency is really being granted to the player, not just to the character. The player gets to make decisions (or give input) that affects the state of the game world, but not directly through the actions of their characters. They get to participate in framing the scene, which in other RPG is exclusively the purview of the GM.

So, a devil's deal: you get some GM-like powers, but in return you agree to constrain your character choices.

Or maybe I'm STILL not understanding this game....

I don't think I've ever seen this style of gaming explained in a way that makes more sense to me. Thank you!

 

[payn]

Yeah, this is how I feel about it, too. The game pemerton describes is certainly a roleplaying game, but is also really quite alien to what I think of as a roleplaying game, and although it's interesting it's just not to my taste.

I think what you said earlier about agency is getting to the difference. There are, I think, two definitions of "agency" that people use:

1. The ability for their decisions to impact the game world
2. The ability for players to make decisions for their character

It seems to me that Torchbearer gives players more of Type 1, but at the cost of less Type 2. I wouldn't say the Type 2 is "taken away" since the players are agreeing to it, or even proposing it, but nevertheless it constrains their choices.

What's interesting is that the Type 1 agency is really being granted to the player, not just to the character. The player gets to make decisions (or give input) that affects the state of the game world, but not directly through the actions of their characters. They get to participate in framing the scene, which in other RPG is exclusively the purview of the GM.

So, a devil's deal: you get some GM-like powers, but in return you agree to constrain your character choices.

Or maybe I'm STILL not understanding this game....

I dont think the choices are constrained at all. I think its examining a situation that occurs that forces a character to react to it. That happens to everyone, nobody has complete omnipotent agency. We are always acting in accordance of what exactly is in front of us. Some of us are comfortable letting go of the wheel and retaking it once the road ahead has been revealed.

I think some folks are operating under a few constraints. The first is playing a power fantasy, in which any loss of control must be clearly outlined in a ruleset. This is pretty obvious with all the book throwing that has been going on to prove a preference is correcter than everyone else's'. Also, a lot of strawmanning of skill use on PCs. Notice how every persuasion skill example goes right past influence, charm, and straight to dominance. Magic not only has varying levels of effectiveness, its absolutely ok to temporarily influence agency. Is it mundane vs supernatural? Im not sure, but I think it harkens mostly to tradition. The second is adherence to roles of the game. The GM runs the setting and NPCs, the players control full domain over their characters unless magic. The line is firmly drawn between the roles and maintained by the rules. Some folks are just more comfortable with a blurred line in those repsects. A less traditional approach that doesnt discomfort them to the degree it can others.

 

[Umbran]

That does not seem like a decision characters could do, whilst deciding to escalate into a fight after a failed negotiation would.

Note: the nominal issue at hand is player agency, not character agency.

The players chose to enter into a particular kind of conflict - and that choice puts some bounds around the stakes of the conflict. That sounds like players exercising agency, to me. "I choose to not have to worry about my character dying over this," sounds like a valid choice.

This game of yours doesn't seem like roleplaying to me, in a sense that it would be making decisions from the PoV of the character, it seems more like making decisions about mechanics which then produce a story about the character.

Think of it this way - you walk into a casino. The space has lots of different poker tables, each with different stakes - some tables have caps on individual bets, others have table stakes, and others have no limits. You step up to a penny-ante table with table stakes, and a max $1 bet. You have $1000 in your pocket.

That, by your own choice, you can't pull out that $1000 and slap it down on the table as a bet... are you not playing poker? Is the only valid poker table the one with no limits? Is the only valid poker establishment one that doesn't offer you different tables to choose from? Is the choice of how much you are going to risk not part of poker?

So yes, this game seems to severely curtail the players' agency to roleplay their character, which is the sort of agency I primarily care about in a roleplaying game.

Which is fine, you like what you like. But, what you, personally, primarily care about is only a subset of the overall genre, isn't it?

I think what you said earlier about agency is getting to the difference. There are, I think, two definitions of "agency" that people use:

1. The ability for their decisions to impact the game world
2. The ability for players to make decisions for their character

And, I think this shows us that the typical definitions are limited views of what "player agency" can be. There are more ways than that for a player to exercise their agency. I think in this example, Torchbearer is actually offering a third type outside the bounds of the typical definitions you give.

Any time the players get to make a choice that impacts how play progresses, that's an exercise of player agency.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Note: the nominal issue at hand is player agency, not character agency.

The players chose to enter into a particular kind of conflict - and that choice puts some bounds around the stakes of the conflict. That sounds like players exercising agency, to me. "I choose to not have to worry about my character dying over this," sounds like a valid choice.



Think of it this way - you walk into a casino. The space has lots of different poker tables, each with different stakes - some tables have caps on individual bets, others have table stakes, and others have no limits. You step up to a penny-ante table with table stakes, and a max $1 bet. You have $1000 in your pocket.

That, by your own choice, you can't pull out that $1000 and slap it down on the table as a bet... are you not playing poker? Is the only valid poker table the one with no limits? Is the only valid poker establishment one that doesn't offer you different tables to choose from? Is the choice of how much you are going to risk not part of poker?



Which is fine, you like what you like. But, what you, personally, primarily care about is only a subset of the overall genre, isn't it?



And, I think this shows us that the typical definitions are limited views of what "player agency" can be. There are more ways than that for a player to exercise their agency. I think in this example, Torchbearer is actually offering a third type outside the bounds of the typical definitions you give.

Any time the players get to make a choice that impacts how play progresses, that's an exercise of player agency.

I'm not sure redefining what agency means for this sort of game is going to change anyone's opinion, on any side of the discussion. As I said above, @Bill Zebub 's explanation makes more sense to me, is more clear about what that sort of game is offering and asking for its participants, than anything I've ever read. More than sufficient explanation for me.

 

[Campbell]

What I'll say is this - in order for your character's desires to be at stake in a game like Torchbearer players are making active choices to enter social conflicts where they are at stake. GMs do not have the authority to just have NPCs act upon you on a whim. Having constraints upon future actions is thus a result of you exercising your agency as player and then having to deal with consequences, no different than a goal no longer being achievable because of some external change.

It's basically a part of a deal - enter into a situation where you are trying to elicit change in an NPC's behavior or desires and expect them to do the same.

I'd also say that regardless of the impact of the constraints placed upon you are still making decisions about your aims every damn minute of play. Are you constrained? Sure.