Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 12:27:07 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.

For a thankfully brief time, my daughter dated an asshole who was a powergamer. In order to get me to meet her "new" boyfriend, she asked me to run a game for the two of them. I agreed, and the guy brought in a diplomancer build character. First use of the diplomancer social overwhelm power went like this:

Boyfriend:  "I walk up to the Duke and say, 'Gimmee all your livestock, bitch'"
Me as DM:  "Are you sure that you want to use those exact words?"
Boyfriend:  "Yeah" rolls some dice, "A 17 plus 51 gives me a 68!"
Me as DM:  "OK, that is pretty high. The Duke frowns at you, then motions to his two guards who approach you menacingly. Roll initiative."
Boyfriend:  "What the Hell?! That was a high roll! Add in the skill and feat bonus my character should have the Duke handing him the keys to the kingdom?!"
Me as DM:  "You just called the Duke a bitch and demanded that he give you his livestock. Your high roll means that he thinks you are a jester with a poor sense of humor. Sadly, he has to have his guards beat you up a bit in order to save his dignity because he is the Duke, but he holds no ill will towards you."
Daughter:   "Dad, you're being a dick."
Me as DM:  "Maybe, but I'm playing in response to the character's exact words to the Duke."

The rest of the session went with his PC missing about 2/3rds of his HP to subdual damage from diplomancer targets who reacted positively, but in accordance to his character's role-played conversation regardless of how high or low his character rolled. First and last game with that boyfriend of my daughter.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 12:27:07 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.

Conversely, I have a problem with PCs that are impervious to all social skills used against them as though they were all autistic. I like games where there are resistances/defenses to social skills (preferably different resistances/defenses for different social skills) and situational modifiers too. However, once those odds are calculated, I'm OK with the dice dictating outcome. However, this does mean that your game system needs to be better than D&D at calculating those odds and modifiers (having a good GM is, of course, necessary as well).

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on December 21, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

Yeah, while mind control abilities do technically take control of the character away from the player, there's a difference between "this ability makes your character behave a certain way (because that's the way that ability works)" and "your character does X because I'm the GM and I WANT your character to do X because it fits my story and I didn't plan for you to come up with an actual counter strategy to my BS scenario".

You could arguably say that both technically remove "player agency", but the first can be rationally justified with in-game reasons that make internally consistent sense (same way that an enemy knocking out your character with a blow to the head technically "removes" player agency as well, since a KOed character can no longer take action), while the second one is just arbitrary GM nonsense. And "arbitrary GM nonsense" is precisely what people complain about when they bring up "but, muh player agency!".

On the topic of social skills and mind control... I think that somewhere between "I make the [insert important sounding title] my bitch, because I have an absurd Diplomacy skill" and "you can't do anything no matter how high your Diplomacy skill is, because muh RP" the truth lies. I get that some players may sometimes try to get away with some ridiculous stuff, but extremely persuasive people and master bullshittiers are a thing IRL (I've met a few), and if social skills don't do anything, then WTF is the point of having them or devoting a bunch of points into them?

Another thing relevant to this topic is that sometimes there's a disconnect between what the player THINKS they can do (or should be allowed to do) and what the GM is willing to let happen. And either one of those parties can be an asshole about it in my experience.

One thing I've noticed some GMs do (and I have been guilty of this myself) is that, instead of stopping the player and explaining to them in PLAIN language (rather than innuendo or "are you sure..." quips) that that shit simply will NOT fly in their campaign, and try to suggest to them a more reasonable approach to achieve whatever it is they're trying to do, they instead retreat to an adversarial GM role and goat them into trying that shit. And when the player does it, they bring down the hammer on them with extreme prejudice and impunity, and escalate the situation rather than attempt to defuse it and refocus play. Which may sound reasonable (and psychologically satisfying in a vindictive sense) on the surface when dealing with a seemingly unreasonable player, but can also stop a session dead on its tracks. Then all the effort of coming together and making arrangements to finally get to play is wasted.

Granted, some players just wont listen, but I think that being upfront about expectations and suggesting alternatives that are in line with player wishes, character abilities and what the GM is willing to allow in their campaign, is more effective than being adversarial about it and tossing away an entire game session over one playing being a smartass.

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 21, 2020, 01:23:16 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 12:27:07 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.

For a thankfully brief time, my daughter dated an asshole who was a powergamer. In order to get me to meet her "new" boyfriend, she asked me to run a game for the two of them. I agreed, and the guy brought in a diplomancer build character. First use of the diplomancer social overwhelm power went like this:

Boyfriend:  "I walk up to the Duke and say, 'Gimmee all your livestock, bitch'"
Me as DM:  "Are you sure that you want to use those exact words?"
Boyfriend:  "Yeah"

Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 21, 2020, 01:23:16 PM
For a thankfully brief time, my daughter dated an asshole who was a powergamer. In order to get me to meet her "new" boyfriend, she asked me to run a game for the two of them. I agreed, and the guy brought in a diplomancer build character. First use of the diplomancer social overwhelm power went like this:

Dont blame yourself, that dude was no power gamer.

Quote from: VisionStorm on December 21, 2020, 09:41:51 AM
Except that it's a term that helps identify a specific issue or aspect of cram GMing, which does not represent the totally of WTF being a "crap GM" entails. Calling someone a "crap GM" doesn't tell me absolutely ANYTHING about WTF that "crap GM" needs to fix. Telling me that he/she/xir keeps denying "player agency" in order to force their characters down his predestined story path or scenario tells me what that GM's specific issue is, or at least helps narrow it down. Telling me that he/she/xir is a "crap GM" is just a value judgement. It doesn't elucidate anything.

If you had asked me back in the day what sucked about that GM I would have said the game was on rails. Simple and done. Now a days I would look at you for a few minutes for having said he/she/X and just walk away saying your perfect for each other.

What Agency should mean, very simply, is that the player character's actions have consequences, and this MUST apply (for agency to be real) to both good and bad actions, that is, good or bad consequences.

If your character can't die in combat, or can't die without player consent, or something like that, the character has no agency.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 21, 2020, 03:07:40 PM
...Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

At a minimum, I require the player to at least articulate what type of approach their character is doing to get their desired result, " I distract the guard by complaining about x..." Or "I appeal to the King by accusing his advisor of treachery, and then show him the letter with his advisors seal..."

Give the table something to imagine, and the GM something to work with.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 07:06:52 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 21, 2020, 03:07:40 PM
...Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

At a minimum, I require the player to at least articulate what type of approach their character is doing to get their desired result, " I distract the guard by complaining about x..." Or "I appeal to the King by accusing his advisor of treachery, and then show him the letter with his advisors seal..."

Give the table something to imagine, and the GM something to work with.

As someone who tends to roleplay in the third person (i.e. "my character does this.") I heartily approve this message.

Honestly, third person is a habit I got into decades ago as the primary GM for my groups as we matured enough to go beyond murderhoboing and started having to deal with PC love interests. There is little I find more uncomfortable than trying to pretend to have a romantic attraction to an overweight dude across a table while others watch.

"The princess returns your affections," may be less immersive, but it is INFINITELY less awkward.

By the time I actually got to play regularly (basically college where there were multiple campus groups) it was so ingrained that trying to play in the first person felt unnatural.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 07:06:52 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 21, 2020, 03:07:40 PM
...Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

At a minimum, I require the player to at least articulate what type of approach their character is doing to get their desired result, " I distract the guard by complaining about x..." Or "I appeal to the King by accusing his advisor of treachery, and then show him the letter with his advisors seal..."

Give the table something to imagine, and the GM something to work with.

That is part of the Player Agency problem. Most of the players that I have seen use munchkin builds like the diplomancer don't want to role-play or puzzle out ways for their characters to succeed, they want to game the system so that they can "win" the game in their mind. Player Agency be damned as long as the character build they have can consistently "win". It is like the player character version of Box Text against the DM.

(This is also a great arguement for why a GM is needed for games in order to make impartial rulings so that the game is fun for everyone.)

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 21, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
What Agency should mean, very simply, is that the player character's actions have consequences, and this MUST apply (for agency to be real) to both good and bad actions, that is, good or bad consequences.

If your character can't die in combat, or can't die without player consent, or something like that, the character has no agency.

I hate to pick nits, but character agency is different from player agency. Player agency means making choices which affect the game in a meaningful way, such as not killing a tied-up prisoner, even though he is the baddie or killing him, proving to all that Chaos reigns supreme and takes no prisoners! Character agency... unless we're talking high level, 'I have just built my keep and collect taxes now' kind of character, there shouldn't be much except on a very local scale.
Other than that, I agree. PCs must be able to face risk to gain reward as well as facing the consequences to that risk or reward. As I used to tell my players: "Want the best equiptment? Do it the old fashioned way ~ EARN IT! And don't expect anything over +2  to be NOT cursed! Because it probably is. More than likely."

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 21, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
If your character can't die in combat, or can't die without player consent, or something like that, the character has no agency.

Did you mean "player" agency? Character agency is a completely separate thing (or possibly not a thing at all, depending on your point of view).

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 08:58:10 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 05, 1975, 01:06:26 PM
There is one situation, at least in D&D, where you have to do this: when a PC has been hit with a mind-affecting spell. Especially the charm spells. It's annoying, but if you have good players, they roll with it.

And you already know that wasn't what I was referring to (and already noted that as a point where it was okay). And that what I'm referring to is in line with "you do as the NPC asks happily and without question even though he's a snide condescending asshole to you after he called on you for help. No you can't demand double and no you can't refuse."

So, you already knew this. Why bring it up?

I wasn't trying to crap on your parade, Chris, so calm down, lol.

I think Pundit has the right of it. Agency means the characters enjoy the fruits of their labors, but also the consequences of bad decisions. And you should let them have both

Player agency means the players can decide they aren't interested in the underground dungeon.  They'd rather hang out at the tavern and drink ale, and then go check out the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel.

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 22, 2020, 09:38:07 AM
Player agency means the players can decide they aren't interested in the underground dungeon.  They'd rather hang out at the tavern and drink ale, and then go check out the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel.

Until they run out of gold and have to do something for money.

Then it's either the underground dungeon, or they are the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel. Or whatever they choose to do for money.