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

 

[hawkeyefan]

The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.

Poor choice of words on my part. “Rarely seen” probably would have made more sense. I know that some games have rules for this, or an option for it to be added.

I'm not sure it's really covert to try and persuade someone.

I mean, a to hit roll represents the other fighter using his/her natural deftness to wrongfoot and feint the PC. If the opponent said "I'm about to feint you" would that make sense? Probably not (at least not all the time).

Covert is not a perfect word for it, no. Sometimes a person could be perfectly straightforward about trying to influence another’s decision making. But not always. Attempts to trick or decieve are, I think, what people tend to take issue with in this regard. I don’t think most folks would voice the complaint “that NPC offered sound advice and my PC took it to heart”.

The feint analogy doesn’t really work for me because even though it’s a deception of sorts, the end result is still someone trying to stick something sharp into the you.

Personally, I want the decision situation for me, as a player, to match or correlate to the decision situation for my PC. Trying to persuade my PC by reasons that don't speak to me is tricky - it can require me to step ouside my inhabitation of the PC and reason it through like a 3rd person ("acting" rather than "being").

Mechanical changes can be one way to generate reasons that plug this gap.

See I look at this almost exactly the opposite. If I want my decision making as a player to align with my character’s as much as possible, then mechanics are an intrusion. I’m supposed to advocate for my character. So if the merchant is telling my character that the duke is secretly evil and aligned with the cult that’s been plaguing the area, then I want the GM to present the merchant’s argument in a way that convinces me.

If any mechanics are to enter into it, I’d prefer it be a roll on my part, using Insight or Sense Motive or whatever relevant skill is called for to try and determine if the merchant has an ulterior motive or is lying.

Doing it in the opposite way...where the GM rolls for the merchant to Bluff/Influence/Persuade my character just seems off. It involves some judgment to decide exactly the impact of the roll; does my PC wholeheartedly believe him? Will the PC march off to confront the duke? Or doEsthe PC simply take the merchant’s information into consideration?

Just seems very heavy handed to me.

 

[5ekyu]

There are all sorts of limits on the declaration of actions in a RPG. For instance, if my PC is in a pit, then I can declare "I try and climb out" but I can't meaningfully declare "I try and walk forward". Social influence doesn't seem very unique in this respect.

I live in a world in which magic doesn't exist, and yet people are influenced by others all the time. It's not that intangible.

You also live in a world where odd fortuitous events kill peopke every day, where someone can slip walking their dog and die, where an unexpected unforseeable bloid clot can just render someone comatose, etc etc etc etc.

Yet, pretty sure a GM invoking those and taking characters out of pc control would find a few issues.

If a gm with all the tools at his disposal cannot get a charismatic character a good pitch, they can absolutely use some form of coercive mechanic... But it would be wise at session zero to explain to the players the mechanics, the circumstances and the frequencies with which they plan to invoke their takeover powers.

That way, folks can know and buy in or walk out.

 

[Lanefan]

If a gm with all the tools at his disposal cannot get a charismatic character a good pitch, they can absolutely use some form of coercive mechanic... But it would be wise at session zero to explain to the players the mechanics, the circumstances and the frequencies with which they plan to invoke their takeover powers.

That way, folks can know and buy in or walk out.

At the start of a campaign I've no way of knowing how much I'll be using (or needing to use) any such mechanics 5 years down the road, if at all.

But I do make it very clear up front that bad things of all sorts can and will happen to PCs from time to time, so might as well get used to it.

 

[5ekyu]

At the start of a campaign I've no way of knowing how much I'll be using (or needing to use) any such mechanics 5 years down the road, if at all.

But I do make it very clear up front that bad things of all sorts can and will happen to PCs from time to time, so might as well get used to it.

So you setup in session zero agreement for you to just say "boo you are dead" and they gotta go along with it... Nice.

Mine go differently than that.

The words "hero" and "star" and "fun" get more focus in those discussions than their getting used to bad things in the game they wont like.

I also do manage to make clear the circumstances and causes for when character control can be lost - compulsory effects.

But each table is different.

 

[pemerton]

Poor choice of words on my part. “Rarely seen” probably would have made more sense. I know that some games have rules for this, or an option for it to be added.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to criticse your choice of words. I just thought you might be interested to know of some examples.

I don't have that great a grasp of how it works in Dying Earth, but I think it's similar to HeroQuest revised (both are Robin Laws designs): in circumstances where the flaw would apply, the GM can call for a check against the rating of the flaw, and if the check fails then the normal consequences for failure ensue (eg in HeroQuest this might be a penalty to subsequent uses of the ability that was tested ).

Burning Wheel, as well as Will, does have a Steel rating, and the GM can call for Steel checks in appropriate circumstances (eg seeing a grisly murder, trying to assassinate someone, being caught in an ambush, seeing a ghost or demon, etc). If the check fails, the character hesitates.

The feint analogy doesn’t really work for me because even though it’s a deception of sorts, the end result is still someone trying to stick something sharp into the you.

<snip>

If I want my decision making as a player to align with my character’s as much as possible, then mechanics are an intrusion. I’m supposed to advocate for my character. So if the merchant is telling my character that the duke is secretly evil and aligned with the cult that’s been plaguing the area, then I want the GM to present the merchant’s argument in a way that convinces me.

If any mechanics are to enter into it, I’d prefer it be a roll on my part, using Insight or Sense Motive or whatever relevant skill is called for to try and determine if the merchant has an ulterior motive or is lying.

Doing it in the opposite way...where the GM rolls for the merchant to Bluff/Influence/Persuade my character just seems off.

At least some of the concern here seems to be about poor mechanics.

And also about the running together of mental states and actions.

To mention the latter first: when the sales clerk persuades you to take out the extended warranty, of course you know that you may be being duped. But maybe you're not! You take it out "just in case".

In Burning Wheel's duel of wits, or in DitV where a struggle takes place using words and neither party escalates (to fists or guns), then losing the conflict doesn't have to mean that you're persuaded. In Dow it means that you've agreed, and you're (at least) resigned to keeping your promise. In DitV, it might mean that you reluctantly shrug your shoulders and say "OK, have it your way." You don't think they're right - you're just not prepared to keep pressing the point.

In DitV, you can see your will to dispute the point weakening, as your number of available dice to commit to the conflict reduces (DitV conflict resolution is by putting forward dice from one's pool, turn by turn, to try and match the opponent). You as a palyer wonder "Can I keep going with this? Am I going to escalate [eg draw a gun, which allows new dice in the pool]? Or let this one go?" Which is what your PC is thinking, too.

Personally, I find the idea that my character has an unlimited degree of resolve or social stamina as unrealistic as if s/he could be peppered with arrows yet unfazed. (A superhero game might be different - but then Loki probably wears away resolve at a superheroic rate!)

 

[pemerton]

You also live in a world where odd fortuitous events kill peopke every day, where someone can slip walking their dog and die, where an unexpected unforseeable bloid clot can just render someone comatose, etc etc etc etc.

Yet, pretty sure a GM invoking those and taking characters out of pc control would find a few issues.

There's no reason that social mechanics have to be arbitrary, is there?

I mean, if the rules of the game dicatate - for whatever reason - that a PC dies (say from poison), then the GM is absolutely entitled to narrate that as some sort of freakish event, isn't s/he (eg the poison led to a fatal blood clot)?

it would be wise at session zero to explain to the players the mechanics, the circumstances and the frequencies with which they plan to invoke their takeover powers.

I don't know what sort of mechanics you have in mind? I'm thinking of fairly well-known RPGs with robust mechanics for resolving social mechanics - most of the time these are instances or specialised applications of general resolution frameworks. (I'm thinking Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, probabluy Fate as well.)

"Takeover powers" would a poor description of social resolution in any of those games. I don't know if that's how people run 3E/PF, but I though everyone knew that 3E/PF Diplomacy rules are worthless.

 

[Crusadius]

Oh, hey...I've been summoned!

Assuming you genuinely are interested in this apparent paradox, and not merely soapboxing, here's my view...

When the 'Charm Person' gets cast (and my character fails his/her saving throw) my character has effectively been hijacked for the duration of the spell. Maybe I still get to control the character (that varies by table) but it's no longer "my" character. And that's ok, for the same reason that it's ok when I don't get to control my character when he drops to zero HP: there is a rule for what happens in that situation.

But the "Persuasion" skill is not a Charm Person spell. When you roll a modified 35 on your Persuasion skill it doesn't mean you have persuaded anybody, it means you were persuasive. See the difference? Your skill success says something about you not about me. My reaction to your silver tongue, on the other hand, is entirely up to me.

I like your explanation about the difference between Charm Person and Persuasion.

One problem I see with games such as D&D is that they have a very detailed system for combat, and a very simple system for social interactions. And this causes some of the problems that this thread is discussing.

Some people offer the solution of not using the dice but roleplaying the social interaction but I don't like this because I believe that every thing on the character sheet is important and should have the same impact on the game as other things of the same category (e.g. Strength in combat, and Charisma in social situations).

I personally like systems that try and deal with with combat and social interaction with similar systems, or as the example above, magical influence and non-magical influence. For example I like how Weapons of the Gods treats such things as Conditions that either give bonuses or penalties to the character.

For given the example: a Charm Person could give a penalty on any action to the character that does not help the caster, whereas the Persuasion skill could give a bonus to the character(s) when they act as being persuaded, doing what the one who persuaded them wants.

Thus Player Agency is maintained and the Players choose how their characters act.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I personally like systems that try and deal with with combat and social interaction with similar systems, or as the example above, magical influence and non-magical influence.

I agree with the former, not necessarily the latter. I think skills are inherently different from spells and abilities. As I said previously, your skill determines how well you accomplish something, not what you accomplish. That is the general rule, and specifics can override it: for example if you have an ability that says, "Once per short rest you can make a Persuasion check, if you are successful....etc." In that case the result is specified, and it's a "rule" in the sense of combat rules.

So the difference between social interaction and combat is not the nature of the rules. It's just that there are a lot more rules for combat. After all, you can cast Charm Person in a social encounter.

But, yes, I'd love to see the mechanics of exploration and social interaction be richer.

As a side note, in no case should normal use of a skill produce a result as powerful as that of a cantrip, let alone a 1st level spell. Which is one reason I don't allow Intimidation to work like Fear, Persuasion to work like Charm, or Insight to work like Detect Truth.

For given the example: a Charm Person could give a penalty on any action to the character that does not help the caster, whereas the Persuasion skill could give a bonus to the character(s) when they act as being persuaded, doing what the one who persuaded them wants.

I like codified mechanics, but (again) I'd be wary of giving Persuasion that much power.

However, I do think the mechanic for an NPC using Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception on PCs is already in the rules, and it works somewhat similar to what you're suggesting: the DM can grant Inspiration when the player plays along with the result, especially when doing so is counter to their own interests.

 

[Lanefan]

So you setup in session zero agreement for you to just say "boo you are dead" and they gotta go along with it... Nice.

Somewhat more extremist than I had in mind...

That said, particularly at low levels death is a frequent companion; and level loss, item or wealth loss, charm-domination effects, and long-term non-death "outages" such as being captured and hauled away - these are all things that can and almost certainly will happen from time to time throughout a campaign. I don't even try to sugar-coat that adventuring is an extremely high-risk-high-reward thing to do.

Mine go differently than that.

The words "hero" and "star" and "fun" get more focus in those discussions than their getting used to bad things in the game they wont like.

It's still fun.

It was one of my players who quite some time ago said something in full seriousness that we've all kind of lived by ever since: "Dungeons without mortality are dungeons without life."

But if you want to be a hero, or a star, or anything special at all it's (almost certainly*) not going to be handed to you. It'll take perseverance, patience, and some luck.

* - the beneficial effects of Decks of Many Things et al notwithstanding; good things can happen to PCs as well.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

(How ridiculous would it be if a DM said, "The cooking is delicious and you all find it very enjoyable. Please roleplay that.") I am free to interpret those cues however I want, hopefully in a way that adds depth to the character concept I have been exploring and expanding upon.

Then, if my interpretations consistently clash with your sense of roleplaying aesthetics, we will figure that out and maybe stop playing at the same table.

Uh-oh, duration on that summoning spell is expiring....

POOF!

I wouldn't find that ridiculous at all to be honest. There are all sorts of games out there that allow for exactly that. Why shouldn't the DM be able to do that?

I for one see absolutely no problem with skill checks being able to replicate magical effects and find the notion that a skill check, no matter how skilled, cannot even equal (let alone be better than) a cantrip or 1st level spell to be pretty much a non-starter.

Played casters and caddies before. Don't like it very much.