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

 

[5ekyu]

One of the most important things that I do when I run a campaign, is confirm a players' action. Often there will be a situation where the player is about to take an action that could be considered dangerous to their character. And right at that moment, other players at the table point out the danger of the action. And I actually welcome this sort of player investment in another player's actions. At my table, players are allowed to debate what they want to do for as long as they like, and they are allowed to reconsider their actions, as long as the outcome of that action has not been revealed yet by me.

So in such cases where the action might be dangerous, I always ask: "Are you sure you want to go through with this action?". And don't get me wrong, I'm not giving away warnings here, or spoiling traps. I'm merely confirming that I understand the actions of their character correctly, and that they as players fully understand the situation as I've described it.

For example, my players recently encountered a tripwire behind a door. The Rogue wanted to cut the wire. So I asked "Do you cut the wire?". He pondered for a second, discussed with his fellow players, and then asked: "Can I see what the tripwire is connected to? Can I see if cutting it will set off the trap?". To which I replied: "No you can't, and opening the door any further would cause it to push against the tripwire and set it off." "What if I use a mirror to look around the corner?" He asked, and this is how he discovered that the tripwire was connected to a flintlock mechanism, and that he could safely cut the wire. "I cut the wire", he said. And cut it he did.

Not only does this method ensure that the players retain agency, but it actually adds a bit of extra suspense. They understand that disarming a simple trap is not merely a case of a successful die roll, but that their choices really do matter.

Great and fantastic... Now lets see that with magical traps, or ones dealing with say myconid fungal spores, deciphering arcane runes, tracking griffons, treating disease caused by possessed worgs and the countless other things which are less obvious than tripwires a non-experienced IT guy can defeat.

Seems to me if a trap placed in a world with basically super powered thieves can be "solved" by my tech writer dad of three, without realky much at all character skill mattering, it was a trap that was not serious to begin with.

Whats next? To close the arcane portal name the crew of the Serenity in alphabetic order?

Combat? Name the three words from The Day the Earth Stood Still and the ogre mage dies?

Its always seems some overly simplified obvious analog that gets used to support skipping or minimizing the character in resolution.

Usually followed by the promise that it applies as well to arcane and medical checks and the scads of others.

 

[Imaculata]

Great and fantastic... Now lets see that with magical traps, or ones dealing with say myconid fungal spores, deciphering arcane runes, tracking griffons, treating disease caused by possessed worgs and the countless other things which are less obvious than tripwires a non-experienced IT guy can defeat.

I treat such traps in exactly the same way. For a magical trap, I may describe what the magical energy of the trap is doing, and what the players can deduce from that, based on their arcane knowledge (for which I sometimes ask them to roll). For example, one of my players recently encountered a magical trap on a chest, while he thought he was sure that it did not contain any magic (based on a detect magic he did earlier). But upon actually searching for traps, and beating the DC I set for it, I informed him that he could see minor sparks of magical energy underneath the lid of the chest.

Seems to me if a trap placed in a world with basically super powered thieves can be "solved" by my tech writer dad of three, without really much at all character skill mattering, it was a trap that was not serious to begin with.

Sometimes traps don't require a skill check. My players only roll when the outcome is uncertain, or when things go wrong.

Its always seems some overly simplified obvious analog that gets used to support skipping or minimizing the character in resolution.

Usually followed by the promise that it applies as well to arcane and medical checks and the scads of others.

It does.

But I have also had non-magic traps in my campaign that were not quite so straight forward. I don't let my players off the hook with a simple "I disarm the trap". I want to know from them how they approach the situation. If the situation is as simple as cutting a wire, then no die rolls are needed. But if its not that simple, or their approach to the problem has a chance to fail, I let them roll.

For example:

The Rogue was scouting ahead of the party and noticed that one of the tunnels was suspiciously clean of dust, bones and skulls. He suspected the presence of a trapdoor, and so he checked for one. Yep, clearly a trapdoor of sorts. The floor seems to be able to move, thus explaining the lack of dust. Perhaps some sort of see-saw contraption, or a chute? Great... but now how do you go about disarming it?

Depending on the actions of the Rogue, a check may be required (if the outcome is uncertain). But if he is really careful, maybe no check is needed at all. The trap in question was a trapdoor that only triggered under the weight of two or more people, and would drop the unlucky victims into a spike pit below. But at best the Rogue can detect that there is some sort of tilting floor present, because the rest of the trap is carefully hidden.

Now, he could try to jam the mechanism so the floor doesn't tilt any more. But that would definitely require a check. Or he could weigh one end of the floor down with the equivalent of two people, which would simply succeed automatically (no check required). Regardless of his approach, I confirm that he understands the situation and wants to proceed with his possibly dangerous action. But he won't know if he's been successful, until he tries to walk across.

And here's an example with a magical trap:

The party finds a little treasure chest, and the Rogue checks it for traps. I ask him how he checks the chest. The Rogue tells me he wants to carefully lift the lid of the chest just an inch, to see if there are any mechanisms that are ready to trigger (this requires a die roll for him to not accidentally trigger the trap). He makes his check, and I describe to him that he sees a charge of magical energy build up inside the chest the moment he lifts the lid but an inch, so he quickly closes it again, and the spell does not go off. The party then tries to identify the spell, and discovers it is a powerful evocation spell. This informs them that this could be some sort of disintegrate spell, and so they take no risks. Later on in the campaign, they deliberately aim the chest at a monster, and open the chest in the monster's direction. The trap triggers, and the spell strikes what ever is directly in front of the chest (no check needed).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure that playing a hot-headed character in a game with mechanics that model that is loss of player agency (assuming you chose that trait). Actually, I think behavior mechanics may have little to do with it...
...maybe I need a refresher on the official definition?

What I do mind...very much...is, the DM (or even another player) telling me what my character thinks or feels. "A wood elf wouldn't do that"

I can't say I care for that attitude, myself, but if wood elves in the setting have a cultural taboo or an instinctual aversion or something, then taking that into account makes sense.

"You would definitely not think of using fire on these creatures that keep healing"

It would be more forthright to just say 'stop metagaming' or 'stop using player knowledge'

"I'll use Persuade to convince your character that mine is right"

In the eds of D&D that have that skill, that use is not kosher, IIRC.

"You find Jeff's character so inspiring that you get your HP back."

In the ed of D&D that originated that, the fluff could be altered ("Actually I find him so insufferable that I get hps back just to show him up"), and the mechanics of the effect gave the recipient the opportunities to expend a resource to recover hps, so if you felt it was out of character, you just wouldn't do so.
Though, the 5e PDK's similar ability heals regardless (you could renounce the status of ally, or, since it requires seeing or hearing the PDK, close your eyes and go "nahnahnyah! can't hear you!").

 

[Piratecat]

I've been thinking a lot about this topic because the game I'm writing has a mechanic for social combat -- including convincing people to do things they might not do otherwise. As folks have noted above, I find that when used against a PC I need to draw a distinction between "magical compulsion" and "your character should do this, even if you as a player don't want to." It doesn't matter if you can take a mechanical penalty to refuse; even that has a tendency to make some players frustrated.

Part of the secret is buy-in. Games like The Dying Earth or Skulduggery are based around the idea of convincing people to stuff they wouldn't want, and there's a huge amount of laughter that comes from that. You have to know how it works going in, though.

 

[Imaculata]

For third edition I came up with a homebrew system for drunk characters. I did this mostly because I thought the rules in the book were stupid (you take con damage if you fail a check, why would anyone then ever drink alcohol?).

So in my homebrew 3.5 rules, a failed fortitude save means the player rolls a D20 on the drunk effect table. This can then result in all manner of hilarious role playing effects, BUT it is up to the player to give his own spin on it. For example, there is one drunk effect that says "You want to confess a very personal secret to someone" or "You become very opinionated on politics", or "You feel like everyone is your friend".

This homebrew rule does affect the behavior of the player's characters, but in a way that the agency is still with the players. It is an excuse for funny role playing situations.

 

[pemerton]

So, I honestly have to ask, what's the beef with a warlord?

I hadn't realised that this is really a warlord thread. That kind-of explains it, in a slightly bizarre way!

 

[pemerton]

But your character's conception of himself can still be that he is strong, and quick, and brave.

I was referring to the player's conception of his/her PC, not to the PC's self-conception.

 

[Sunseeker]

Part of the secret is buy-in. Games like The Dying Earth or Skulduggery are based around the idea of convincing people to stuff they wouldn't want, and there's a huge amount of laughter that comes from that. You have to know how it works going in, though.

I think these are the two most important takeaways from all this discussion.

If players come into a game knowing how it runs, they're going to know that sometimes they'll be on the receiving end. But knowing how it runs also means sometimes you'll be on the dealing side. As long as you're willing to role with the rolls then there really isn't a problem.

And frankly, most of the time when an NPC is trying to convince you to do something, what's really going on is the DM is trying to move the game forward.

I for one like to be a good little fishy and bite all the hooks.

 

[pemerton]

And frankly, most of the time when an NPC is trying to convince you to do something, what's really going on is the DM is trying to move the game forward.

I for one like to be a good little fishy and bite all the hooks.

For games that have functional social conflict mechanics, this tends not to be the case. Just as in other sorts of conflict, the idea is to provoke a response from the players in the play of their PCs.

 

[5ekyu]

"And frankly, most of the time when an NPC is trying to convince you to do something, what's really going on is the DM is trying to move the game forward."

Really? Wow.

One of the first things i tell my players in session zero is "Never think of the NPCs as me. They are people inside the world, not agents of my will. React accordingly. They will."

Heck, on more than a few occassions, when the PCs were rolling up an organization, the NPC leader sent foljs to hire them for a lucrative, heroic job, sometimes even with added local social pressure to get them out of their hair while they regrouped.

Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didnt.

Either way, the players had leads and options and choices and that "escort priests and supplies to macguffinville" plot was pitched as "in game offer" like every other.