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

 

[Shasarak]

As opposed to the Player expectation that NPCs react unrealistically because the Player rolled high? Or the Player feeling that their character is persusasive as part of their character concept but fail to persuade the DM's concept of the NPC without the aid of dice resolution mechanics? Or as opposed to the Player forcing their character to act unrealistically out-of-character because the player does not want their character to be subject to the same governing norms, realities, and fallibilities that exist in the game as expressed by the mechanics? If I could get my character out of danger by simply declaring as a player that I am not persuaded, then I may as well declare that my character is constantly wearing an invisible invulnerable force field.

I dont see how choosing to fight the King rather then accepting his quest to save his Daughter from the Dragon is the same as getting your character out of danger by wearing an invisible invulnerable force field.

It just means that I reject your plot hook and replace it with my own.

 

[Shasarak]

But, yeah, the player choosing to spit in the King's eye because "F you, you can't tell me what to do!" is the absolute worst kind of role player. The disruptive player who retreats behind "Well, it's my character and that's what my character would do!" No thanks.

I truly believe that the mechanics should guide the player to playing the character they actually created, not just whatever they feel like playing.

Then I will just give you my character sheet and you can narrate the way the story will unfold without actually needing me to be there. Say us both a lot of trouble that way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM. But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok? How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?

The former are the consequences of my choice of how to play. The latter is not a choice.

 

[Shasarak]

But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM. But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok? How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?

It is the difference between being Drafted and Volunteering. I know that if I choose not to be Drafted then there is going to be consequences, it is not like there is going to be some kind of invisible force field protecting my character.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM. But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok? How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?

Now that I have a bit more time, I'll expound on my short answer.

The job of the DM is to present the world and narrate results. The job of the players is to make choices and declare actions. This is pretty much true of all games that feature a GM/player split. The problem is when the lines get crossed. If the DM is making choices for the players, it's less than good. This can happen by using geas to force actions by the PCs or by framing a situation that the King is making a demand on your life and you, as a player, made no choices to be there. A good game develops when the choices that are made by the player unfold into the game.

If the situation is that the players make choices that result in gaining an audience with the king, and, at that point, surrounded by the guard and the court, a player chooses to spit in the king's face, I, as DM, am going to certainly honor that player's choice and narrate the brief altercation, arrest, imprisonment, and beheading the next morning. Consequences for actions that are fairly presented with known stakes are very kosher and the root of the game. Using DM force to make decisions for the players (ie, the King rolled a 35 on his Diplomacy, you have to take his quest now!) is bad. The reason for this is because the DM already controls the scene -- he presents it to the players, they have no choice here. The DM also built the king, and can do so in a way that's abusive. The DM is also choosing to push the King's build in the scene he set onto the players for the purpose of forcing a course of action from the players. In effect, the DM is just narrating what the characters do and only pretending to give the players an option. There isn't one, this is a pure railroad.

For the record, when I say railroad I mean that the outcomes are predetermined by the DM and forced to occur. Framing a scene that fronts a specific challenge is not a railroad, even if it removes some choices, so long as the outcome of the scene is up to the players -- ie, the outcome rests on the player's actions and the mechanics resolving the players actions (not DMNPCs).

On a side note, I used to be in the camp that let NPCs roll against players. I'm not anymore, because I realized that's me, as DM, forcing things onto to the players. I now prefer the play concept that I describe scenes, players describe actions, then I narrate results and use mechanics to resolve uncertainties. Wash, repeat. There's no room for the DM to roll against the players in this concept. Any agenda by NPCs is part of the framing of the scene and the implicit and explicit stakes bet by the players as part of their action declarations. So, if the Prince wants to convince to players to rescue his daughter, he has to bring actual stakes to the table rather than a high diplomacy check. NPC skills are used to set DCs or for contested rolls when applicable against player action declarations.

Combat is a special case of the above, where rolls are made against the players. This is because the explicit stakes of the combat sub-game are randomized to, ostensibly, increase tension and dramatic impacts. And, my players like combats, so I'm not going to make major changes around things they like.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM. But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok? How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?

Because it's not being railroaded, at all, if he'd been railroaded, he'd be on the quest. He's not, he's dead, that's about as far from being on the quest as you can get.
It's more like being run over by the train. A railroad was involved, your heirs might even be able to slap it with a wrongful death suit, but you are in no way a passenger on that railroad, being taken to the next destination, lamenting the lack of options to take side-trips or choose alternate destinations where track has not yet been laid.

 

[Hussar]

Which would be all well and good except that in play it’s a pretty rare dm that just flat out whacks the pc.

Meh, I’m not a huge believer in the divide as I used to be. I have no problems with players stepping into the dms role from time to time and taking control of the game. Nor do I have a particular issue with the dm forcing particular situations. As I said, to me it’s the mark of a really great player who can incorporate these outside elements and build an even better game.

It’s not “less good” at all. It’s all about how you portray your character.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which would be all well and good except that in play it’s a pretty rare dm that just flat out whacks the pc.

Meh, I’m not a huge believer in the divide as I used to be. I have no problems with players stepping into the dms role from time to time and taking control of the game. Nor do I have a particular issue with the dm forcing particular situations. As I said, to me it’s the mark of a really great player who can incorporate these outside elements and build an even better game.

It’s not “less good” at all. It’s all about how you portray your character.

How, exactly, am I portraying my character when the DM rolls some dice at me and tells me what my character thinks and does? I'm portaying nothing -- the DM's portraying my character for me at that moment. This is the problem. The DM already has the world and all the NPCs and the rules. If the DM also can play my character for me, why am I there at all?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Which would be all well and good except that in play it’s a pretty rare dm that just flat out whacks the pc.

Meh, I’m not a huge believer in the divide as I used to be. I have no problems with players stepping into the dms role from time to time and taking control of the game. Nor do I have a particular issue with the dm forcing particular situations. As I said, to me it’s the mark of a really great player who can incorporate these outside elements and build an even better game.

It’s not “less good” at all. It’s all about how you portray your character.

I fully agree with the part in the bold. But if something is not optional it's not really "great" play, it's just following instructions.

Really great play would be to "incorporate these outside elements" in a non-obvious way that took the story in an unexpected direction. Hard to do that when you're simply acquiescing.

And I guess that's why I'm ok with players sometimes simply choosing their mechanically preferred outcome: because that freedom also sometimes produces great improvisation.

 

[Hussar]

How, exactly, am I portraying my character when the DM rolls some dice at me and tells me what my character thinks and does? I'm portaying nothing -- the DM's portraying my character for me at that moment. This is the problem. The DM already has the world and all the NPCs and the rules. If the DM also can play my character for me, why am I there at all?

That’s just it, no he isn’t.

He’s telling you that x is true. You believe the lie, you don’t see the ninja, you find the argument very compelling to the point where you agree with it, you are grumpy because you are tired.

Now, given that information, what do you do?

This massive pile of straw you folks are building doesn’t carry any water. The dm is no more portraying your character for you than hitting you for five damage negates your ability to act.

There is a huge excluded middle between the dm not being able to say anything about your character and the dm turning you into a puppet.