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

 

[pemerton]

I was a bit surprised to open a thread on game mechanics and player agency, and find that it's about behavioural mechanics. I don't think that's where the real action is for player agency and RPG mechanics.

It's also important to differentiate control over the PC in the fiction, and the scope of player action declarations at the table. To give a concrete illustration. In one of the campaigns that I GM, a PC is under the control of a dark naga. But this doesn't effect the player's agency at all: in this system PCs have Beliefs, and the player has written a Belief about his service to his master. And then he just plays the game just the same as any other player would.

 

[Imaculata]

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.

 

[delericho]

I don't have a "red line" as such, but rather increasing circles of wariness when it comes to interfering with PC action.

In general, my view is that the DM gets to control everything else in the campaign world, but the one thing he doesn't get to control is a PC. Therefore - hands off!

When it comes to mundane interactions (persuasion and the like), I'll handle this through role-play - if I rolled well on the Persuasion check, I'll have the NPC talk in a persuasive manner. If not, I'll have him act like a jerk. (In rare occasions, where my acting fails me, I might straight-up tell the player "this guy is very persuasive", but the key word there is rare - generally, if I get to this point, I've messed up.) In any event, in all such cases it is for the player to decide how to react to the situation.

Magical compulsion is a slightly different matter, but even here I'll try really hard to avoid taking over the PC. Most often I'll hand the player a note informing them of the situation, and ask them to play accordingly. It remains their decision how to portray their character, relevant to the situation. Obviously, the more powerful the compulsion, the more strictly I'd expect them to stick to the parameters - a low-level spell will give great leeway and wiggle room, while a high-level spell would be much more onerous.

The only real case where I'd take control of the character is if I can't trust the player to act accordingly. But then, I strongly prefer not to DM if I can't trust my players.

When it comes to PvP, the same more or less applies. But I've been lucky enough that I haven't seen any uses of compulsion magic on another PC in decades.

One table convention we are in the process of adopting, however, is to ban a PC taking action to negate another PC's action. That is, quite often a player will declare some action (which may or may not be a good idea), only for a second player to immediately say "before he does that, I'll {take some action to prevent him from acting}". Which isn't the same thing, but has been causing some problems. So the convention will be that you can build on another player's action, you shouldn't act to tear it down again.

 

[Imaculata]

One table convention we are in the process of adopting, however, is to ban a PC taking action to negate another PC's action. That is, quite often a player will declare some action (which may or may not be a good idea), only for a second player to immediately say "before he does that, I'll {take some action to prevent him from acting}". Which isn't the same thing, but has been causing some problems. So the convention will be that you can build on another player's action, you shouldn't act to tear it down again.

This is one of my biggest annoyances as a DM, but I don't quite know how to put a stop to it.

 

[delericho]

This is one of my biggest annoyances as a DM, but I don't quite know how to put a stop to it.

Yep. I think this is one of those cases where your best bet is to speak to the players directly about it, and get them to buy-in. Trying to impose it as a rule is unlikely to work.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm definitely in favor of having 'behavioral mechanics' in a game. If players are creating characters, they should think carefully about what motivates and drives them. This is a crucial information for the GM when trying to present them with adventure hooks they're actually interested in.

Being able to use personality traits in more ways than just fleshing out a character is where things get really interesting, though:
In Ars Magica, numerical values are assigned to them, so they can be used in checks. Players are encouraged to pick Virtues and Flaws to gain additional advantages (or disadvantages!) in situations where their traits are relevant.

Behaving out of character may call for a personality trait check and result in a penalty for the encounter if the player insists on ignoring it.

As the article points out, similar mechanics exist in other RPGs, such as Pendragon, The One Ring, The Dark Eye, Earthdawn, etc.

 

[Over the Hill Gamer]

I think the greater threat to player agency is not GM overreach but system mechanics that steer players to a handful of defined options, moves, or actions. These systems remove the greater scope of possibility.

 

[Imaculata]

I think the greater threat to player agency is not GM overreach but system mechanics that steer players to a handful of defined options, moves, or actions. These systems remove the greater scope of possibility.

-Or player interpretation of those mechanics. I've encountered plenty of players in my life who thought that character actions in D&D were limited to whatever you have skills or abilities for. Especially so with third edition, with that big list of skills. I've gradually taught my players that they can try to do any action they like, and statistics are only relevant when I say so.

 

[Koloth]

This is one of my biggest annoyances as a DM, but I don't quite know how to put a stop to it.

1st char - one doing the action. 2nd char - one attempting to halt said action.
Did the 2nd character trying to stop the action specifically prepare a "Ready Action" or equiv for game system being used? Implies character(not player) had some foresight that 1st character might pursue the unwanted action. Yes - 2nd char can attempt to halt 1st char action. No? Have the 2nd character make a perception roll to notice the 1st character starting the action. If successful, does the 2nd character have a way to act out of turn? Yes - make the attempt. Might be possible for 1st character to contest the attempt to halt action. No - Too bad, 1st character continues doing action.

 

[Lanefan]

One table convention we are in the process of adopting, however, is to ban a PC taking action to negate another PC's action. That is, quite often a player will declare some action (which may or may not be a good idea), only for a second player to immediately say "before he does that, I'll {take some action to prevent him from acting}". Which isn't the same thing, but has been causing some problems. So the convention will be that you can build on another player's action, you shouldn't act to tear it down again.

This happens in my game all the time, almost always in the following sequence:

Player 1: "[my PC] does [something incredibly dumb or dangerous]"
Player 2: "[my PC] tries to [grab/restrain/stop] him!"
DM: "[PC 2], roll to see if you're caught off-guard by what [PC 1] just did."
Player 2: <rolls well> "I'm good - not surprised."
DM: "OK, now roll to hit..."

Wisdom, in case you're unaware, tends to be the dump stat around here.

What I'm starting to find annoying is when someone comes up with a good idea or action, one or more other players will jump in and try to act as if it was their idea all along.

Lanefan