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]

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.

I have had days when i am dogged tired and in great spirits cuz that effort was rewarding.

I have had very complete logical and what most would consider compelling, but which failed to move me one bit cuz i had different priorities.

I have had very skilked pitches expertly arranged, seup and followed thru played to me where i sat actually extremely interested and fascinated - by their techniques, their art of the pitch. The tecniques were easily sufficient to sway many many... And do day after day... So no question they had good bonuses.

But all they did for me was provide tutoring in their approach.

There is a difference between whether i notice something and whether i believe a pitch or agree with a position.

 

[Hussar]

Totally agree.

But the game says that you are tired and therefore suffer disadvantage to all skill checks. Interpreting that as grumpy isn’t all that unreasonable.

The game says that you believe the deception. The game says you don’t see the ninjas. The game says that you find the argument compelling.

You are not your character. You are trying to role play that character. Which means that that character reacts and acts differently than you do.

To me, saying “nope, I the player don’t think that therefore that’s what my character thinks/feels” is poor role play. Why bother having a character at all if your just playing yourself in a virtual meat suit?

 

[Shasarak]

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.

For the sake of the discussion, say we are going for your NPC diplomancy idea.

Which way do you suggest that you want to play it out? Is it going to be a DM roll against a DC or would you prefer the PC to make a save against the NPC (either a fixed DC or an opposed roll)?

 

[Jhaelen]

So the problem you have with creating realistic characters using DnD rules is alignment?

No. My problem with alignment is that it serves no useful purpose; especially regarding the creation of (realistic) characters. Unfortunately, many players apparently don't realize this and assume choosing an alignment is sufficient as a description of their PC's personality.

Having an alignment system as it is implemented in D&D is worse than having no system at all. Especially considering that D&D is the first RPG for so many players. They will have to unlearn it. They need to realize it's crap and stop thinking in alignment categories. It's quite clear from this thread alone that having been exposed to the alignment system has poisoned the minds of many RPG players. D&D's alignment system is a cancer.

I guess, you should ask me how I really feel about D&D's alignment system, though...

 

[Imaculata]

No. My problem with alignment is that it serves no useful purpose; especially regarding the creation of (realistic) characters. Unfortunately, many players apparently don't realize this and assume choosing an alignment is sufficient as a description of their PC's personality.

That seems hardly a problem with the alignment system though.

 

[Jhaelen]

That seems hardly a problem with the alignment system though.

?!!?!
So, if I buy a gadget that's been advertised as something everyone requires and find out later that it serves absolutely no useful purpose and is actually detrimental in certain circumstances, it's a not a problem with the gadget?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Perhaps you were, but not by me.

That said, however...

But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok? How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?

Proaction vs. reaction.

A Geas or Quest spell is, from the DM side, a proactive way to force a PC to do something without the PC necessarily bringing it on him/herself. Killing a PC for spitting in the King's face is reactive on the DM's part, as one of several quite plausible and logical responses that the PC has brought upon itself by its own actions.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

For the sake of the discussion, say we are going for your NPC diplomancy idea.

Which way do you suggest that you want to play it out? Is it going to be a DM roll against a DC or would you prefer the PC to make a save against the NPC (either a fixed DC or an opposed roll)?

Just a caveat here. The NPC has made a suggestion (save my daughter) and made a persuasive arguement (diplomacy check). Which doesn't mean that you have to jump on a horse right now and ride off. It would mean, though, that you accept that quest, in that example. Right? I just want to be pretty clear here what we're actually talking about. The NPC has made a plausible suggestion (kill your ally is NOT a plausible suggestion) and we're rolling dice. ((I'm being specific here, because obviously in specific circumstances, there might be all sorts of other issues - maybe the princess is a vampire and the PC is a paladin))

So, with that in mind, I'd probably just go with the set DC's from the DMG. It's a pretty plausible suggestion from someone who can quite plausibly make suggestions that are going to get acted on (not that many people tell the king to piss off, at least, not more than once), so, probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of a DC 15. Pretty decent pass/fail chances.

And, again, just because you are going to go on the quest to save the princess doesn't automatically mean you can't try to get a bigger reward, or something like that. It's just that, if the NPC is successful, you are going in that direction and your play should reflect that.

/edit to add

I would like to say that the quest example is not a particularly good one. Let's be honest, if, in the game, you've met the king of the land and he says, "Please save the princess", most players are going to say yes. Primarily because that's where the adventure is. It's a pretty dick move by the players if the DM sets this up and the players say, "No, we aren't interested in all that work you just did preparing for tonight's session, we're going to go do something else". I'd say that most of the time, when the DM presents a pretty clear plot hook like this, most players are good little fishies and bite onto it anyway. A check likely wouldn't even be needed.

Yes, yes, I realize that in your game (whoever you happens to be) players are 100% free every single session to do whatever they like, but, I'm fairly confident in saying that most tables aren't like that. The DM has the adventure, whatever the adventure is, and well, as a player I'm not going to turn my nose up at it.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps you were, but not by me.

That said, however...
Proaction vs. reaction.

A Geas or Quest spell is, from the DM side, a proactive way to force a PC to do something without the PC necessarily bringing it on him/herself. Killing a PC for spitting in the King's face is reactive on the DM's part, as one of several quite plausible and logical responses that the PC has brought upon itself by its own actions.

Lanefan

That's some pretty fine hair splitting. Do what I want you to do or I'll kill your character isn't really any different at the end of the day than do what I want you to do and I'm going to smack you with some magic to make you do it. I'm not really going to draw much of a distinction there.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed.

The arguments come because somewhere in that middle many of us also see a point along the spectrum that we don't want crossed. Problem is, we don't all see that point as being in the same place.

(1) The game says that you believe the deception. (2) The game says you don’t see the ninjas. (3) The game says that you find the argument compelling.

There's three different things here that should, I posit, be resolved differently. I've taken the liberty of inserting numbers, for clarity.

1. There's many kinds of deception and thus many ways to resolve them. If it's an illusion spell or effect then resolve it using whatever save-vs.-spells the game system allows you. If it's some thiefly sleight of hand then resolve it using whatever thieving mechanics the system has. But if it's a spoken deception e.g. a lie or misdirection then see point 3.

2. Most if not all systems have mechanics for this hiding-sneaking-perception sort of thing, and though some are better than others it's usually not that hard to figure out; and sometimes the game will say you don't see the ninjas.

3. Unless magic is involved the game should never be allowed to enforce this, and any game whose rules say otherwise needs to have those rules summarily houseruled into nonexistence. Sure, if out-of-character a player asks the DM "so, just how persuasive is this guy being?" a DM is free to say "yeah, he's pretty comvincing"; but that only informs the player without force and the player can still have her PC tell the King to get lost should doing so be consistent with that PC's usual character. But otherwise, actual spoken-word roleplaying in person across the table risks being reduced to a numerical dice exercise, which makes me wonder what's the point.

=====

Also to point out: there's nothing at all wrong with a DM suggesting what a PC thinks or feels as part of setting an atmosphere or framing a scene e.g. "As you enter the unholy temple the more goodly among you - such as Aloysius, Bjarnni and Falstaff - feel a definite sense of unease and threat, and the hairs rise on the back of your necks; and Chaundra: as a Cleric to Light you immediately realize this place has retained its evil consecrations."

Lanefan