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

 

[Guest 6801328]

You oppose with Will, or Resolve, or Stubbornness. At least, that's how it works in the systems I'm familiar with.

And I think that's where we differ. In games that have things like Will or Resolve I believe it should only be used (when it's used for 'resistance') against supernatural/magical effects. In mundane situations it's up to the player. I don't think I'd enjoy a game where "Stubbornness" is a defined stat, any more than "Politeness", "Irreverence", "Introversion/Extroversion", etc. That should all be up to the player.

The part I find odd about discussing this with you is that I understand (well, I think I understand) what you're saying, and I just have a different...and fairly straightforward and consistent...view. But your posts have this aura of confusion, as if I'm describing something bewildering and alien. I can't tell if that's just a rhetorical technique, or if you genuinely don't understand my point of view.

I was focusing not on the character's self-conception, but the player's conception of the character.

Oh...whoah. That was not at all what I thought we were talking about.

That sort of thing seems to happen over the Internet a lot.

 

[Hussar]

Stealth determines how well you are hiding. The other guy uses Perception to determine how well they are noticing.

Presumably Arcana to erase a sigil affects the sigil, not the caster, and in any event would have a DC based on the caster's level/ability.

Beating somebody in a race would be an opposed Athletics check. You are each rolling for your own success; you rolling well doesn't make the other person go slower.

How does that work for Persuasion?

And....on top of all of that, I still have strong opposition to anything that tells me what my character thinks. You have given this example of "You may think of yourself as the best fighter around, but if you keep getting beaten you won't be able to keep believing that, so the mechanics do affect why you think." Or something like that.

I disagree. I may lose every single fight, but if I want my character to still think he's the baddest dude ever...who just happens to have excuses for all those losses...that's my business, not the DMs.

But, I don't quite understand here.

The mechanics are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are not perceptive enough to see someone stealthing. How is that different from the mechanics telling you that you find this person to be persuasive? As far as rolling for athletics, well, the rules are actually silent on that fact. It's a pretty abstract system. There's no reason that you couldn't describe my high check meaning that you ran slower. After all, the mechanics are telling you that you are not running as fast as you can (presumably you didn't roll a maximum athletics check). You can claim you are running as fast as you can, but, the mechanics tell a different story.

In the case of an athletics check, there is actually no failure. You always run as fast as you can. But, the mechanics determine that your "as fast as you can" in this instance is not fast enough. Why you aren't running as fast as you can (because you didn't roll a 20) isn't explained in the rules. You can interpret it any way you like.

I really don't understand the fixation on the divide here. The mechanics tell you what happens. They don't tell you why it happened. They never do. Why did you do X damage to the creature this round and Y the next? Well, that's up to you to figure out. Same with any sort of social mechanics.

 

[5ekyu]

"The mechanics are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are not perceptive enough to see someone stealthing. How is that different from the mechanics telling you that you find this person to be persuasive?"

The first is describing what your character sees, not what you think about it, not whether you find it beautiful or ugly or any other judgement.

The latter is telling you how your character feels about it.

The first is a presentation of the world (perhaps an accurate one, perhaps not) and the latter is a presentation of your character's thoughts.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is another example of bad mechanics: the DC doesn't reflect the fiction. Compare the combat system, where Captain America's physical resolve is reflected not just in AC but also hit points.

(I'm not a 3E/PF expert, so I'm taking the presentation of those systems at face value.)

Not to defend 3E and its iterations, but I’m sure that there was a whole slew of modifiers that could be added to the roll that would make it more or less likely. I find the basic ideas of skill checks and DCs to be a pretty straightforward mechanic that is then lost in a morass of modifiers.

I prefer to keep things simpler unless the complexity adds something to the game experience. I don’t think 3E pulled that off.

Different strokes and all, but I don’t like highly codified rules.

 

[pemerton]

The part I find odd about discussing this with you is that I understand (well, I think I understand) what you're saying, and I just have a different...and fairly straightforward and consistent...view. But your posts have this aura of confusion, as if I'm describing something bewildering and alien. I can't tell if that's just a rhetorical technique, or if you genuinely don't understand my point of view.

<snip>

Oh...whoah. That was not at all what I thought we were talking about.

That sort of thing seems to happen over the Internet a lot.

The two sides of the <snippage> may not be unrelated.

In this thread (and others, maybe?) you've talked about the importance of the player deciding what the PC thinks. I can't see how that matters, except as a particular instance of a more general phenomenon - the general phenomenon being preserving the player's conception of the PC.

My views about preserving the player's conception of the PC are mixed - maybe confused, or at least in tension - because it is something that is quite important to me, but I also prefer RPGs where it is put under pressure. The resolution of the tension, for me, I think, is a practical thing: the player's conception shouldn't be yielding to that pressure accidentally or trivially, but only because of the players' deliberate choice to accept that pressure, by putting his/her PC to the test.

A game where this happens only on occasion, at the moments of truth, is less draining/demanding, I think, than one where this is the norm: I would contrast 4e and, say, Burning Wheel in this respect. 4e gives the player a lot of devices to buffer against that sort of pressure and so preserve his/her conception of his/her PC. Because of the generally abstract nature of its resolution system, it also gives the GM a lot of scope to narrate outcomes in ways that tend to be less undermining of the players' conception of the character.

An alternative take on this "tension", among the games I play regularly, is found in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic RP: the conception of the PC is almost always potentially under pressure, but the whole context of play and the stakes of the game are sufficiently light-hearted that most of the time the dint to the players' conception of the PC will be amusing or a bit ironic (as befits a 4 colour comics RPG) rather than really deep or challenging to the player.

In any event, the point of the above is this: if one is playing a RPG in which the players' conception of the PC is subject to challenge and even refutation, I don't see how it makes any difference if that challenge or refutation comes on the social side rather than (say) the physical side, or as a result of magic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In any event, the point of the above is this: if one is playing a RPG in which the players' conception of the PC is subject to challenge and even refutation, I don't see how it makes any difference if that challenge or refutation comes on the social side rather than (say) the physical side, or as a result of magic.

I think this is the core of the disagreement.

What I can't tell whether your puzzlement is because:
A) you think my line of demarcation is vague and inconsistent
B) you think there's no functional difference twixt the physical and the mental and therefore no especially good reason for having that line of demarcation.

If it's just B then it's entirely a matter of gaming aesthetic. One thing we can determine with certainty from these forums is that there are many different approaches to RPGs and roleplaying.

If it's A then...well, I don't know what to say about that. The distinction is pretty clear to me.

 

[pemerton]

you think my line of demarcation is vague and inconsistent

By your line of demarcation I take it you mean "magic" vs "mundane"? I think that's clear enough, although I gess there might be borderline cases.

If you mean "mental" vs "physical" that's more prone to borderline cases (is staying awake while tired mental or physical?) but will be clear enough much of the time.

B) you think there's no functional difference twixt the physical and the mental and therefore no especially good reason for having that line of demarcation.

If it's just B then it's entirely a matter of gaming aesthetic. One thing we can determine with certainty from these forums is that there are many different approaches to RPGs and roleplaying.

I don't know what "functional" difference you have in mind.

What I don't get is the gaming aesthetic. As in, it's pretty opaque to me why my conception of this bit of my imagined alter-ego ("I'm the toughest guy there is") is fair game for being undone, but this other bit ("I'm the bravest/shrewdest/whatever guy there is") is not.

One idea that I had reading the thread when it first started was that the issue for some posters was one of the allocation of authority over the shared fiction: the GM has authority over everything else, so the inside of the PC's head is the player's last bastion. I don't know if that is something like what you're thinking, or not; but I can see the logic of it. Though it's not a way of thinking that moves me very much, because I don't play games in which the GM has authority over everything else.

 

[Guest 6801328]

By your line of demarcation I take it you mean "magic" vs "mundane"? I think that's clear enough, although I gess there might be borderline cases.

If you mean "mental" vs "physical" that's more prone to borderline cases (is staying awake while tired mental or physical?) but will be clear enough much of the time.

Physical. The DM can tell me I'm tired, and even suffer a penalty to rolls because of it, but he's not allowed to tell me how I feel about being tired. "You're grumpy because you want some sleep" is off-limits.

I don't know what "functional" difference you have in mind.

What I don't get is the gaming aesthetic. As in, it's pretty opaque to me why my conception of this bit of my imagined alter-ego ("I'm the toughest guy there is") is fair game for being undone, but this other bit ("I'm the bravest/shrewdest/whatever guy there is") is not.

Huh? "I'm the toughest guy there is" is not fair game. Despite an absolute preponderance of evidence, if I want my character to believe he is the toughest guy around...or the bravest, or the shrewdest, etc....then that's my prerogative.

I think what you are referring to is whether or not he is actually so tough that he can shrug off a mechanic that says he takes damage, or stand tall to a mechanic that specifies he must flee, etc., and why those are categorically different. By the categorization you are emphasizing, they aren't.

But that's only because you don't value the categorization I use: whether or not my character's emotions and thoughts are being dictated. And, unless it is supernatural or magical, it is never ok to dictate those thoughts.

One idea that I had reading the thread when it first started was that the issue for some posters was one of the allocation of authority over the shared fiction: the GM has authority over everything else, so the inside of the PC's head is the player's last bastion. I don't know if that is something like what you're thinking, or not; but I can see the logic of it. Though it's not a way of thinking that moves me very much, because I don't play games in which the GM has authority over everything else.

No, it's not. I actually prefer to have the players contribute to the fiction in a broader sense. It's too much work to do it all myself.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"The mechanics are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are not perceptive enough to see someone stealthing. How is that different from the mechanics telling you that you find this person to be persuasive?"

The first is describing what your character sees, not what you think about it, not whether you find it beautiful or ugly or any other judgement.

The latter is telling you how your character feels about it.

The first is a presentation of the world (perhaps an accurate one, perhaps not) and the latter is a presentation of your character's thoughts.

Meh. Perception isn't about being physically blind if you fail the check, it's about noticing things. That, too, is about your character's thoughts. If your character looks across a stream at some bushes and fails his perception check he sees the bushes rustle and thinks nothing of it, if he makes the check he wisely interprets the movement as someone skulking about.

 

[aramis erak]

In the context of 5e I don't really know how to answer this question. I don't think the 5e ability check/skill system, in it's basic form, is robust enough to support a strong system for social interaction, or other clear contributions to resolving conflicts; and my 5e design-fu is not strong enough to just come up with a robust variant. (The system presents some exceptions eg using Athletics in some hand-to-hand conflicts. But those don't provide an obvious model for generalising to other abilities/skills.)

In 4e, it's easy to envisage using Arcana to impose a penalty on a character. My own play experience is with Religion in that respect rather than Arcana (eg speaking a prayer to the Raven Queen to impose a penalty on an undead opponent) but I don't think Arcana would be any different (eg if the opponent was an elemental).

Am I talking about the right sort of thing to address your question?

5E has a fairly clear resolution for persuasion. DMG 244-245. It presumes the target to be an NPC. One can, however, readily apply it to the PC by having the player pick the initial reaction.

A 20 on the Cha check to get them to do a task is sufficient to get them to do things for a price.