Game Mechanics And Player Agency

Afrodyte · Apr 19, 2018

Hussar said:
How likely is it that the 8 Wis barbarian is going to disbelieve that bluff? You are saying that it's good roleplaying when the 8 wis barbarian (or whatever) chooses to ignore the rolls at the table because you, the player, feel like it. To me, and, hey, you can get all snarky about it all you like, I think that's poor play.

Ugh! This reminds me of something that happened to me a lot in one game more years ago than I care to admit.

This was 3e. I was playing a silver-tongued rogue (I am shy and awkward in real life, and I was even worse back then), and whenever the party interacted with NPCs, another player, who was playing a monk with a Charisma of about 8 sort of steamrolled over the interaction and did all the talking, even interrupting me before I had a chance to say, "Can I make a [insert social skill] check?"

Finally, I had enough of it, and when he steamrolled over an interaction again while my silver-tongued rogue was right there, I piped up with, "Isn't Charisma your dump stat?"

Nowadays, I'd probably be more tactful, but in my experience, refusing to play out the weaknesses of a character in a situation that calls for it affects other players even more than it affects the DM. Other players also made choices about the strengths and weaknesses of their characters as reflected in their stats, so someone who goes, "Nope!" when the dice don't favor them in one situation can wind up stepping on the toes of a role that another player built their character to fill. Unless, of course, one player's agency matters more than everyone else's.

Lanefan · Apr 19, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
...but, yeah, Lanefan was prettymuch talking about winding back the clock to early 1e, before there was anything much resembling skills outside the Thief class.

The various physical "skills" that model things done in real life, including physical skills (jump, balance, hold breath, etc.) and mental skills (memory, knowledge, etc.) are all just fine and weren't much of a part of 1e at all.

It's the interpersonal skills - the ones that replace or short-circuit actual RP at the table - that have to go.

Lanefan · Apr 19, 2018

pemerton said:
This is not a thread in the D&D sub-forum, though. It's in General RPG.

And whether you like it or not, the vast bulk of RPG play is either in D&D (all editions with 5e very much primary right now) or a very close offshoot (PF). So, bring in examples from niche games all you like; but if they don't speak to D&D/PF they might not get much traction.

This is strong stuff - no legitimate reason? - really? -

Yes it is.

and also rests on a mistake. What do you think action declaration looks like in systems with proper social resolution mechanics? Hint: actual spoken-word roleplay.

An action declaration of "I try to persuade the king to up his reward for finding the princess" is not roleplay, it's the social version of roll-play. Action declarations are not roleplay in themselves.

Roleplay in this case means speaking the actual words your character would say in order to persuade the king, in character and without reference to mechanics. The DM, taking the role of the king for the moment, then replies in character as said king. A conversation of some sort ensues, and at some point during this the king decides to either up the reward, decline to up the reward, throw the PCs out for daring to ask for more, or whatever. This decision could be based on any or all of a host of factors, some obvious to all (is the PC being courteous, is the king a jerk, etc.) and some hidden (does the king have enough in his treasury to offer more).

Lanefan

Jhaelen · Apr 19, 2018

Imaculata said:
I think the alignments help get a basic idea of where your character stands in regards to morals and values. For example, whether your character is good, neutral or evil, is already a pretty clear step to defining what kind of character you are going to play. If your character is lawful, then this poses the question in what way your character is lawful? Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong? Or do they follow a personal code? I wouldn't call that useless, but it is just a basis from which to further expand on your character's moral compass.

No real person is always good or always evil.
No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.

Real people don't commit evil acts because they're 'Evil'. They always rationalize their actions in some way. If your 'Evil' character commits atrocious acts for no reason other than being 'Evil' what is she?
What you (well, at least myself) really want, is players describing their goals and motivations, their personality traits. Following these will result in actions that others may consider good or evil.

Likewise the lawful/chaotic axis is way too one-dimensional:
You ask: "Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong?" I ask: How does your character feel about law "X"? How about law "Y"? It's not about 'the law' it's about specific laws. The stance towards each law can and will vary for an individual person.
You ask: "Or do they follow a personal code?" I ask: "Well, what IS your personal code?"

Describing a character's personality means to look at what drives them, and that simply isn't an abstract alignment.

And that's not even getting into the issues how alignment is used mechanically in D&D. Because in (almost) all editions and settings your alignment choice is tied to potential consequences. Classes you can't choose (or class abilities you risk losing), spells and magic items you can't use, etc.

And then, worst of all are the (misguided) expectations of many players and GMs:
For players it's an excuse to have their character act like a jerk, and for GMs it's a means to dictate the actions of the player characters.

I'm absolutely convinced the world (of roleplaying games) would be a better place if D&D had never had an alignment system.

Lanefan · Apr 19, 2018

pemerton said:
But Luke Crane does comment, in one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, that in his experience the use of social mechanics to resolve PC vs PC arguments does (i) help the group at the table reach consensus on what to do next, and (ii) makes players feel more comfortable to have their PC argue with another PC, precisely because there's a way of resolving it at the table which sees the game go on, rather than having everything grind to a halt due to this social issue with no straightforward resolution.

This is awful.

In my Cortex+ Heroic game the PCs argue with one another from time to time, inflicting mental or emotional stress on one another (because some of the PCs have milestones which yield XP when this happens, some of the players are always on the lookout for a chance to do this). In my 4e game once, and in my Classic Traveller game more than once, I've used an impromptu social mechanic to resolve a seemingly interminable PC-vs-PC argument about what to do next - eg in Traveller I have each side roll, with a side that includes a noble, or a PC with Leader expertise, getting bonuses.

The side that loses agrees to go along with the side that wins - at the table first and foremost, and therefore in the fiction also.

And this is worse.

The player(s) on the side that loses have just given up a great deal of their agency to game mechanics and meta-considerations; and further, are now forced by these mechanics into doing something their characters don't want to do. And this is relevant: sometimes what the player wants to do and what the character wants to do are quite different; and here good roleplay dictates that the character's desires take precedence. I've played characters into adventures I-as-player had no interest in at all; and I've had characters pull me out of adventures that I-as-player were really keen on.

If the players in their roleplaying of their characters have put those characters into an argument with each other, if you-as-DM have an NPC in the party you can throw in that character's in-character take on things, but other than that you-as-DM have no business using game mechanics to cut it short and-or force a resolution.

If the argument goes on all night, so be it. Less work for you; sit back and enjoy your beer.

If the argument becomes serious enough to split the party, so be it. You and the players now have the meta-issue of which part of the party to run, but IME if it's the players that are splitting the group they're also always cool with helping decide what gets run next. (usually, IME if the party splits into groups A and B the players in group B roll up new characters for group A and vice versa, then A gets run for a while and B put on hold, after which A gets put on hold and B gets run. The definition of "a while" varies by group and situation.)

Lanefan

Lanefan · Apr 19, 2018

Jhaelen said:
No real person is always good or always evil.
No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.

Absolutely true. And the same can be said of many PCs.

But over the medium to long term a DM can observe what your PC does and how it acts, and take an average; which gets noted as your alignment. (over the short term when a PC has just been introduced the DM often has to guess a bit)

And that's not even getting into the issues how alignment is used mechanically in D&D. Because in (almost) all editions and settings your alignment choice is tied to potential consequences. Classes you can't choose (or class abilities you risk losing), spells and magic items you can't use, etc.

This is exactly why I keep alignment, as I quite like having all those limits and consequences as part of the game. I also like aligned items and places.

And then, worst of all are the (misguided) expectations of many players and GMs:
For players it's an excuse to have their character act like a jerk, and for GMs it's a means to dictate the actions of the player characters.

I'm absolutely convinced the world (of roleplaying games) would be a better place if D&D had never had an alignment system.

It'd be different, for sure. Whether it'd be better or worse or the-same-but-different is and always will be an open question.

Lanefan

5ekyu · Apr 19, 2018

Hussar said:
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] - you are presuming, of course, that the pitch man is always successful. After all, I'm advocating a mechanical resolution here, which means that success is never guaranteed.

Flip it over. How likely is it that the 8 Wis barbarian is going to disbelieve that bluff? You are saying that it's good roleplaying when the 8 wis barbarian (or whatever) chooses to ignore the rolls at the table because you, the player, feel like it. To me, and, hey, you can get all snarky about it all you like, I think that's poor play.

Play the character that you brought to the table. If that means that sometimes your character is influenced by stuff that you the player aren't then so be it. I'm a very big fan of games like Burning Wheel and FATE and Blades in the Dark which actually have mechanics in place to achieve this. I do wish that D&D would bring them in too.

If we're honestly going to promote the idea that the three pillars of the game are supposed to be equal, then how does it make sense that one of the pillars has virtually no mechanics and what mechanics there are, can be ignored by the player any time she feels like it?

This, again to me, seems like a perfect place for a rules option module in something like Unearthed Arcana. Something that a table could choose to use if it so desires.

"@5ekyu - you are presuming, of course, that the pitch man is always successful. After all, I'm advocating a mechanical resolution here, which means that success is never guaranteed. "

Well, of course, no i did not presume auto-success or imply it. Any,more than sending minions to kill the PCs presumes or implies auto-success.

And again, its not about roleplaying, good, bad, other. Yah can keep painting the other side with bad roleplaying pellets... It is missing the mark.

A GM can order from on high "thy has taken exhaustion so though art tired and so thou must play it and represent it by being cranky" (or giddy silly giggly) or the player can make that same choice after being told "with your exhaustion level you character is tired" and **in either case** the roleplat that follows may match or not that decision.

What is at question here is not how neato nifty the player chooses to roleplay gee willikers but **who** decides how that character responds to the "result" of "tired".

Lets put it this way...

In combat if the ogre bashes my character for 10 hp and thst drops me to 20... Or of some injury like half spped busted knee etc... I take those results and apply them i suffer the effects.

But, how the character chooses to react to that remains their choice.

I can decide **in character**:
Time to run
Time to rage
Time to yell for medic and go defensive.
Time to say a prayer and keep swinging.
Etc etc etc etc.

That continues until some higher threshold takes it out of my hands and i no longer control my character.

What is being proposed here is to take the "how the character chooses to react" for social engagements and hand it to the GM. The player gets told not only that the pitch man made a sttong case but that the character was convinced... The character decided... The character agreed.

On top of that, now that the choice has been removed from the player, he is expected to play this other persons character.

At least in combat you are not required to play dead or be tagged as bad roleplayer!

I prefer games where the players are the ones playing their characters.

Radical, i know.

Hussar · Apr 19, 2018

Lanefan said:
This is awful.

And this is worse.

The player(s) on the side that loses have just given up a great deal of their agency to game mechanics and meta-considerations; and further, are now forced by these mechanics into doing something their characters don't want to do. /snip

Just a point. The character isn't the issue here, the player is. It's the PLAYER that doesn't want to do something. The mechanics of the game say that the character does actually want to do it, or rather will reluctantly go along or something to that effect.

The issue isn't about the character. It's about the player refusing to accept that there just might be something that might convince the character even though the player remains unconvinced.

Imaculata · Apr 19, 2018

Jhaelen said:
No real person is always good or always evil.
No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.

That is of course correct. But the D&D alignment system do not suppose differently.

Jhaelen said:
Real people don't commit evil acts because they're 'Evil'. They always rationalize their actions in some way. If your 'Evil' character commits atrocious acts for no reason other than being 'Evil' what is she?
What you (well, at least myself) really want, is players describing their goals and motivations, their personality traits. Following these will result in actions that others may consider good or evil.

Again, D&D's alignment system does not claim that people commit evil because they are evil. All the alignments do, is describe if your character is more likely to commit good acts, or evil acts.

Jhaelen said:
Likewise the lawful/chaotic axis is way too one-dimensional:
You ask: "Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong?" I ask: How does your character feel about law "X"? How about law "Y"? It's not about 'the law' it's about specific laws. The stance towards each law can and will vary for an individual person.
You ask: "Or do they follow a personal code?" I ask: "Well, what IS your personal code?"

I think you are mistaking the intent of the alignment system. It isn't meant to be the final definition of your characters personality, they are a tool to help you get started. So if you state that your character is lawful good, that is a general description of your character's moral compass. But that doesn't mean that you can't further define your character, and it doesn't mean that your character blindly follows every law.

Jhaelen said:
And then, worst of all are the (misguided) expectations of many players and GMs:
For players it's an excuse to have their character act like a jerk, and for GMs it's a means to dictate the actions of the player characters.

You make the mistake of confusing the rules of the system for people that misuse the system in a way that it is not intended. You could list ANY rule in the game, and come up with an example of how a player may use it to act like a jerk. That doesn't make it an inherent flaw of the system.

TheSword · Apr 19, 2018

My approach to some of the most common situations is thus. When a player gets dominated for the first time. Take them to one side, have them describe how their character feels inside and what they are thinking so they get chance to express themselves. Then have a discussion with the player about how the domination effect could play out.

- Try and give the character instructions that give some freedom. So “defend this area” rather than “stay in this spot and attack the first thing that comes through the door with your sword”

- Give the character an out... the enemy gives instructions that allow them to make follow up saves. Rather than skirting the rules to get the most efficient result.

- Make sure there are methods for other party members to break the curse somewhere accessible.

- Make sure the end result leads to a fun and interesting challenge rather than a gloomy, recrimination filled TPK

- Use sparingly, I.e once in a campaign. If the same villain tries to do the same move the PCs should be able to counter it or turn it to their advantage.

With more subtle effects like charming, intimidation, etc. It is a case of me trying to work in an effect that still influences behaviour without removing decision making power from the player. These don’t have to be negative effects. Things you could use in D&D if intimidated as a PC could include.

- disadvantage on the first check made (maybe attacks against the bully until your first hit)
- losing place(s) in the initiative order
- temporarily being unable to use your own intimidation or mind effecting powers.
- losing or reducing movement
- or perhaps adding to movement provided it is away from the source
- improving cover bonus provided the player takes cover immediately

I always thought 3rd Ed’s greater range of conditions was always useful for this. With the shaken chain of conditions for instance. DMs can improvise effects that take into account the effect. Saying that non-magical abilities cannot ever effect what players are thinking shuts off a whole range of potential challenges the most common of which is fear. If done with a light touch, fear can be truly frightening and give players the chance to roleplay and still overcome challenges.

After all as Ned Stark says you can only be brave when you are afraid.

Game Mechanics And Player Agency

Afrodyte

Explorer

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Jhaelen

First Post

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

5ekyu

Hero

Hussar

Legend

Imaculata

Hero

TheSword

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles