Game Mechanics And Player Agency

The concept of player agency is a central pillar of all role-playing games. It is a balancing factor against the omnipotent, omniscient Game Master. For the purposes of this article, we will be focusing on the smaller-scale application of player agency and the role of game mechanics that negate or modify such agency.

View attachment 95347​

From the very first iteration of Dungeons & Dragons in 1974, there have been mechanics in place in RPGs to force certain decisions upon players. A classic D&D example is the charm person spell, which allows the spell caster to bring someone under their control and command. (The 1983 D&D Basic Set even includes such a possible outcome in its very first tutorial adventure, in which your hapless Fighter may fall under the sway of Bargle and "decide" to let the outlaw magic-user go free even after murdering your friend Aleena!)

It didn't take long for other RPGs to start experimenting with even greater mechanical methods of limiting player agency. Call of Cthulhu (1981) introduced the Sanity mechanic as a way of tracking the player-characters' mental stress and degeneration in the face of mind-blasting horrors. But the Temporary Insanity rules also dictated that PCs exposed to particularly nasty shocks were no longer necessarily in control of their own actions. The current edition of the game even gives the Call of Cthulhu GM carte blanche to dictate the hapless investigator's fate, having the PC come to their senses hours later having been robbed, beaten, or even institutionalized!

King Arthur Pendragon debuted in 1985 featuring even more radical behavioral mechanics. The game's system of Traits and Passions perfectly mirrors the Arthurian tales, in which normally sensible and virtuous knights and ladies with everything to lose risk it all in the name of love, hatred, vengeance, or petty jealousy. So too are the player-knights of the game driven to foolhardy heroism or destructive madness, quite often against the players' wishes. Indeed, suffering a bout of madness in Pendragon is enough to put a player-knight out of the game sometimes for (quite literally) many game-years on end…and if the player-knight does return, they are apt to have undergone significant trauma reflected in altered statistics.

The legacies of Call of Cthulhu and King Arthur Pendragon have influenced numerous other game designs down to this day, and although the charm person spell is not nearly as all-powerful as it was when first introduced in 1974 ("If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the Magic-User until such time as the 'charm' is dispelled[.]"), it and many other mind-affecting spells and items continue to bedevil D&D adventurers of all types.

Infringing on player agency calls for great care in any circumstance. As alluded to at the top of this article, GMs already have so much power in the game, that to appear to take any away from the players is bound to rankle. This is likely why games developed mechanical means to allow GMs to do so in order to make for a more interesting story without appearing biased or arbitrary. Most players, after all, would refuse to voluntarily submit to the will of an evil wizard, to faint or flee screaming in the presence of cosmic horror, or to attack an ally or lover in a blind rage. Yet these moments are often the most memorable of a campaign, and they are facilitated by behavioral mechanics.

What do you think? What's your personal "red line" for behavioral mechanics? Do behavioral mechanics have any place in RPGs, and if so, to what extent? Most crucially: do they enhance narrative or detract from it?

contributed by David Larkins

 

[Sunseeker]

My "Red-Line" is when a mechanic forces a player to sit out of the game, the longer it is, the further it crosses the line. I don't mind games that say "You've been possessed and the spirit controlling your body wishes to attack your allies." So long as that control is given to the player, "Hey player, you're still rolling the dice here, but you're gonna do something different." is perfectly acceptable. When the game takes away the character, puts it under direct GM control (where the GM is making the decisions and rolling the dice) as opposed to indirect GM control (where the GM gives you instructions on how to act, but lets the player rolls the dice and fill in the specifics) is IMO, too far. You don't want to remove the player from the game, the player should always be kept in the game, even if its to do things they don't want to do. Indeed fighting against the mind control can make for interesting choices, ex:

If the Evil Wizard commands you to attack your friends, the choice on which friend you attack first is left up to the player. Perhaps the dominated-but-still-aware PC mind takes this as an excuse to attack That Guy who has always been a pain or to finally rid the party of the Bumbling Idiot. Perhaps the dominated-but-still-aware PC mind ops to attack the tough, heavily-armored fighter knowing that they are least likely to kill that person. It is interesting from a DM perspective to allow players that level of control, and I think fitting to the genre that the bad guy may not issue the most tactical orders, ie: the bad guy is more likely to say "Kill your friends!" than he is to say "Kill the healer, then the mage, then the rogue, then fighter and make sure they're actually dead by cutting off their heads!" Maybe there's even some interesting dialogue as all the bad things the dominated-but-still-aware PC feels (even if minor) spill out during combat.

But you lose that when you take away the PC and make them a silent drone of the GM, or allow the GM to write that sort of interaction for them. Plus the GM has so much to do already...do they really want to run the PCs as well?

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

My "Red-Line" is when a mechanic forces a player to sit out of the game, the longer it is, the further it crosses the line.

Yeah I totally agree. The way I think of it is that the players have taken the time to go to the game, so having long periods of time where they're excluded is not desirable. IMO this principle can extend to areas such as other players taking excessively long turns, but it's definitely the case for "stun lock" attacks, too much charm and fear, or imprisonment. A little goes a long way.

That said, there are players who can get really whiny about this, but if the GM keeps the game running smoothly at least they won't have a strong leg to stand on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The obvious line is magic. There's a difference between 'this wizard casts a spell on you, so now you're doing what he tells you,' and 'this guy made a very convincing argument, so now you want to help him'; the first prevents the player from expressing their free will in what they want to do, but the second one actually changes what their free will is supposed to be in the first place.

Whenever a PC does something that they wouldn't normally do, everyone at the table - including the GM, and especially the player - should recognize that it's something they wouldn't normally do, so they know for a fact that something shady is going on. You should never have a case where the GM effectively says, 'actually you would normally do that in this situation, because I know your character better than you do'.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

My "red line" is only when/for a mechanic that gives another Player control of a fellow Player's character. All Players at the table understand that each other is there to play their character. All Players also understand that the GM is *not* "another Player"...and that the GM is given extremely powerful leeway on how his/her game is run.

So, when an NPC wizard uses a spell that, in the OP's parlance, "removes that players agency"...that should be perfectly fine because every single player at the table knows that this can happen. They know that if something "in the game world" does something to control their PC, that the GM is there to take over and decide what happens. The players SHOULD trust their GM to run the character "fairly" (as dictated by his/her GM knowledge of what is actually going on).

The only time I've had upset players is when one of two things happens:

One, it's one Players PC "taking control" of another Players PC via magic/ability/whatever. This never ends well. Ever. It's basically "bullying other players at the table" so to speak. (NOTE: Long term friends or players in a group can usually overcome this because, well, they're all friends; anybody who specifically tries and piss of their friends quickly finds that they will have none...)

Two, the Player is a self-entitled little whiny brat who doesn't think the rules of the spell/ability/whatever apply to their PC because their PC is super-extra-doubly-special. This player is under the false impression that they get to decide how a GM runs the game if they don't like it.

IMNSHO, the players at the table should know the difference between the GM's role in the game and the Players role in the game. The GM can do, technically, anything they want. The players can not. This difference, however, is moot most of the time because most roleplayers are there to have fun and not piss off their friends (or even total strangers). Everyone at the table (GM and Players) should be there for the purpose of having a good time and collectively playing make believe. But...there are always those players who fall into my #2 reason above. Still, as I said, Players should fully understand and accept that some things in the game that happen to their PC will be out of their hands. The Players have to trust the the GM will "play fair"...and yes, even if this means that their PC poisons everyone that night including themselves, causing a TPK.

I have a feeling I'm going to be an "outlier"...again...of what the majority of Players and GM's think about this whole thing. *shrug* It's ok. I'm use to it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Shiroiken]

IME, the term Player Agency is often thrown out as an argument against an action taken by the GM that upsets certain types of players. In an RPG, players control their characters actions, but only within the rules of the game. Effects that limit options or remove them altogether are generally disliked, but so long as this possibility is known (usually in the form of the game rules), the player has little ground for complaint (other than to play a different game). It doesn't even have to be magic compulsion, because I've found some games work well with actual social mechanics.

I'm not a fan of effects that prevent a player from doing anything for a long period of time, and try to mitigate them. For example, a charmed/dominated character can still be controlled by the player, so long as the player acts appropriately. If the player starts to half-ass their abilities to save the rest of the party, they lose that option and then get to sit out the rest of the fight (or until no longer charmed/dominated). Most players seem okay with this (and a few jerks delight in the rare PvP), so I've seldom had to sit a player. Insanity is another good example, as is replacement by doppelganger. Good players don't have to sit out, even though it may be recommended in the game rules, so long as everyone plays their character correctly (including personality altering effects).

 

[Campbell]

I'm not a fan of mechanics that take away control, but I am a fan of mechanics that influence and limit player behavior in ways that reflect the social and emotional pressure their characters are under. Good examples include the Beaten Down and Surrender Mechanics from New World of Darkness 2e, Apocalypse Worlds' xp for going along with social influence, Masks' Label Shifting and Conditions, and Exalted 3e's Intimacy Mechanics. I think we often end up making decisions for our characters with too much emotional distance and those mechanics can help bring us closer to what they are experiencing in the moment.

 

[Lanefan]

My "red line" is only when/for a mechanic that gives another Player control of a fellow Player's character.

...

I have a feeling I'm going to be an "outlier"...again...of what the majority of Players and GM's think about this whole thing. *shrug* It's ok. I'm use to it.

Not so much an outlier as you think. In my games pretty much anything goes. Charm someone else's PC? Fill yer boots - but know well that the same might happen to you in turn sometime down the line... Same goes for killin' or stealin' or whatever else.

Crazy example of this from very early in my current campaign. An all-hands in-party brawl had broken out, and as fate would have it something like 4 or 5 party members had access to charm either by spell or bardic song or innate ability...and they did; in a looping chain where character A charmed B, B charmed C, C charmed D, and D charmed A all within the same round, with all saves failed! Character E, who could also charm, picked on some other random bozo. What a mess...and all done through gales of laughter!

As for someone sitting out - it happens. Fact of life. There'll be times when your PC is held, or paralyzed, or stone, or captured, or unconscious, or dead, or otherwise out of action for a greater or lesser amount of time. To mitigate this I always encourage people to have two characters on the go, so if one gets hosed they've still got the other. There's also usually at least one party NPC that a player can take over for a while if necessary. And as most other things wear off but death kinda doesn't, we usually try to get dead (or stone, or long-term-captured) PCs either revived, recovered, or replaced with a new PC at the first realistic opportunity.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Not so much an outlier as you think. In my games pretty much anything goes. Charm someone else's PC? Fill yer boots - but know well that the same might happen to you in turn sometime down the line... Same goes for killin' or stealin' or whatever else.

Yeah, this reflects table dynamics. Most people get really cranky with a lot of PvP behavior.

As for someone sitting out - it happens. Fact of life. There'll be times when your PC is held, or paralyzed, or stone, or captured, or unconscious, or dead, or otherwise out of action for a greater or lesser amount of time. To mitigate this I always encourage people to have two characters on the go, so if one gets hosed they've still got the other. There's also usually at least one party NPC that a player can take over for a while if necessary. And as most other things wear off but death kinda doesn't, we usually try to get dead (or stone, or long-term-captured) PCs either revived, recovered, or replaced with a new PC at the first realistic opportunity.

Indeed it does. I think character death is something that bothers people a bit less than some of the others, particularly long and frustrating stun locks or super long turns on the part of other players. People set aside their time to come to the game; getting excluded for long periods of time is really no fun. A party NPC is a good option, or henchmen of some sort, especially in a smaller group, so that can definitely help.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I'm not a fan of mechanics that take away control, but I am a fan of mechanics that influence and limit player behavior in ways that reflect the social and emotional pressure their characters are under. <...> I think we often end up making decisions for our characters with too much emotional distance and those mechanics can help bring us closer to what they are experiencing in the moment.

Yes, I definitely agree about the emotional distance issue. I've used some basic personality mechanics, including checks I'll make myself, to help me decide on what my PC (or NPCs when I'm GMing) will do. I usually write down a few descriptive adjectives such as Integrity, Mercy, Courage, and assign them numbers. If I'm really on the fence about something I'll check against them (roll a D20 vs. the number). Of course this is non-binding, but it helps push in directions I wouldn't otherwise necessarily choose just on my own.