NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Micah Sweet]

How the noun "duck" is defined is agnostic about my opinions on the animal.

I think that it's okay if you enjoy playing games or at tables where you limit your agency as a player to the actions of your designated player character in the fiction of the world. However, I think that we shortchanging our understanding of player agency in TTRPGs by limiting it to just that particular sense while ignoring the full picture of the various ways that players can exercise agency in TTRPGs.

Maybe. Everyone's opinion about agency is valid, but if you don't want agency beyond that offered through your PC, and/or you are unwilling to accept the constraints on that kind of agency to get agency of a different kind, I'm not sure how much dickering over definitions matters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe. Everyone's opinion about agency is valid, but if you don't want agency beyond that offered through your PC, and/or you are unwilling to accept the constraints on that kind of agency to get agency of a different kind, I'm not how much dickering over definitions matters.

It probably doesn't, but it can it least make it clearer when there's no way for the two pieces of rope of different people's desire to meet.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It probably doesn't, but it can it least make it clearer when there's no way for the two pieces of rope of different people's desire to meet.

There are definitely times when people try to overly narrowly define words in order to prove their point. Not sure how useful that is.

On the other hand, when people are disagreeing, and it is (or might be) because they are using the same word in different ways, it can be useful to describe that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are definitely times when people try to overly narrowly define words in order to prove their point. Not sure how useful that is.

On the other hand, when people are disagreeing, and it is (or might be) because they are using the same word in different ways, it can be useful to describe that.

Well, that's the gig; in the end the broader use is being made of a term, the more likely different people are using it differently, and thus talking past each other if its core to the discussion. You can try to narrow it every time you talk, but that's tedious and few people want to take the time to be constantly doing it.

In the case here, neither "player agency when only looking at it through the view of what involves in-character adjacent decision making" and "player agency including directorial or game focused decisions" are both cumbersome to constantly state, so its no surprise people don't want to.

 

[Starfox]

As a GM, you control every aspect of the PCs perception. To fool a PC, you play around with the information you hand out rather than using direct force. Don't tell them "Cardinal Richelieu convinces you to blow up the castle of this ancient family", tell them that the family are robber barons and villains of the worst order. Then, if the PCs bother to check up on these facts, they may learn this was all lies, or not.

As a GM I love framing the same situation differently for different characters, depending on their origin. The elf noble in 5E who often fails lore checks have been fed so much elven supremacy propaganda she grew up with that I had to cut back to avoid conflict in the party.

 

[Theory of Games]

As a GM, you control every aspect of the PCs perception.

Depends on the system. With all of the systems I've use, dice (perception checks) have more of an impact than the GM.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Depends on the system. With all of the systems I've use, dice (perception checks) have more of an impact than the GM.

But who decides what's there, what the DC is to detect it, and what information is acquired? I think of that as GM control.

EDIT: I suppose there are games where that's all determined by dice, too.

 

[billd91]

Depends on the system. With all of the systems I've use, dice (perception checks) have more of an impact than the GM.

Considering everything the PCs see, hear, smell, or perceive in anyway is based on the information you give them as GM, I don't see how that's possible. You may be using perception checks or other rolls to decide how much to divulge, but every aspect of it is ultimately controlled by you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But who decides what's there, what the DC is to detect it, and what information is acquired? I think of that as GM control.

EDIT: I suppose there are games where that's all determined by dice, too.

There are games and approaches where players can have their characters to "notice" or "remember" things of the player's choosing into existence.

 

[Theory of Games]

It's an experience shared by player, GM and dice. Neither dominates.