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

 

[Tony Vargas]

That doesn't leave a very large slice of the pie for Exploration...

I'd guestimate about same 1/3rd proportion it had before cutting out anything that might be construed as thinking/feeling for a PC and/or treating PCs & NPCs differently, just the other 2/3rds'd be combat, since Social would be gone, and combat should lose a lot less than exploration. Maybe it'd even be half & half in a given campaign....

...but, yeah, Lanefan was prettymuch talking about winding back the clock to early 1e, before there was anything much resembling skills outside the Thief class.

 

[Afrodyte]

I think, in 5e, CHA (skill) checks are the wrong place to look for the equivalent of social "hitting" of PCs. The real action is in the Inspiration mechanic. When an NPC makes an argument that touches on the personality traits, ideal, bond, or flaw of a PC, Inspiration incentivizes the PC's player to make a decision that "portrays" the PC's personal characteristics.

That's what I said!

 

[pemerton]

Unaligned is simply Neutral with a different name.

I think that unaligned correlates fairly closely to neutral in the OD&D and B/X system.

But in AD&D (at least 1st ed), true neutral is something a bit different (DMG p 23; pHB p 33):

Absolute, or true, neutral creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary part or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order far chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this naturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened.

The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law
- of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.​

So true neutral, in AD&D, is a "naturalistic ethos" which holds that all is as it is meant to be, with each facet of life contributing to that overall balance - provided that humans and their ilk don't disturb the balance through their attempts to change things (which cannot have any long-lasting effect).

This is not unaligned, but more like the outlook of some realworld philosophies and religions - stoicism, for instance - and also some political movements - eg Burkean conservatism.

The Han Solo-type scoundrel, who in 4e is unaligned and in OD&D or B/X is neutral, in AD&D I think is chaotic neutral: they prioritise their own self-realisation over other-regarding moral obligations.

EDIT: I see [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] made a similar point to this upthread.

 

[Hussar]

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.
...

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. /snip

So much for an excluded middle. That's not finding a point along the spectrum that you don't want crossed, that's saying that it is a binary situation and the game should never be allowed to enforce things.

I obviously disagree.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, yeah, imply anyone noting the complexity is a moron. Classy.

I said no such thing. Saying that somethibg isn’t that complicated isn’t the same as saying anyone who doesn’t get it is a moron. That’s a really lousy attempt to put words in my mouth.

I’m gonna drop this whole side topic. I think I made a point, you addressed something about the way I made my point, and I then clarified. I’m not gonna get drawn into any further semantic quibble with you on this.

 

[pemerton]

Likely because while earlier versions of D&D (i.e. the game most familiar to most people) had some vague and easily-ignored attempts at social rules (e.g. morale), 3e was the first time they were both hard-coded and pushed to the fore. Thus, 3e's social rules by default became both the benchmark then and the go-to example ever since.

This is not a thread in the D&D sub-forum, though. It's in General RPG.

in this particular case (social negotiation) there's no legitimate reason to want them either. Short-cutting or skipping actual spoken-word roleplay; jumping to the end of the scene rather than talking through a stalemate; a desire to force PCs (or NPCs, for all that) to be "persuaded" where their free will might go otherwise: none of these are legitimate reasons for social mechanics in any way

This is strong stuff - no legitimate reason? - really? - and also rests on a mistake. What do you think action declaration looks like in systems with proper social resolution mechanics? Hint: actual spoken-word roleplay.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Again, I think this is because no matter how compelling an argument can be made, people can still hear it and say "I don't care". Look at how many people smoke or eat McDonald's or do any other self destructive behavior. They have heard compelling arguments which they know to be true and they've chosen to ignore them.

Under your view of the rules, how do you allow for this phenomenon?

Why would I bother rolling here? If your character chooses to do something self destructive, I'd probably raise an eyebrow and say, "Are you really sure you want to put your hand in the Green Demon face?" But, it would be a pretty rare D&D game where an NPC is going to try to convince the PC to eat more kale.

Also, how do you allow for different people to respond differently to the same compelling speech? if the result is based entirely on the roll for the NPC's speech, then if it's high, is everyone persuaded? Do you allow for different DCs for each listener? Seems needlessly cumbersome.

Every PC has a different saving throw vs a given spell. How is that any more cumbersome? Every PC has a different AC. What's the difference?

As far as trying to convince the group, well, to be honest, die rolling will almost never come into it. Like I said, when the King says, "Hey can you rescue my daughter" my players know that "Hey, the adventure is that way!" and react accordingly.

And, as a side note, I'd point to the popularity of Adventure Paths as evidence that this sort of behavior at the table is pretty common. It would be a pretty rare group, I think, that sees the DM plunk down Out of the Abyss and the players go, "Naw, we want to be innkeepers in Waterdeep". And no amount of social rules is going to help that group.

This rolls back to my point about the excluded middle. Are there examples where a die roll probably isn't appropriate? Of course. Totally agree. But, that does not mean that social mechanics should be house ruled out of existence.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, it would be a pretty rare D&D game where an NPC is going to try to convince the PC to eat more kale.

Now I have to work that into my next session somehow... It'll be a toughie, they're talking to Loki in a seedy corner of Valhalla (OK, it's a ravine towards the base Kord's peak in Celestia, but six-of-one).

Like I said, when the King says, "Hey can you rescue my daughter" my players know that "Hey, the adventure is that way!" and react accordingly.
And, as a side note, I'd point to the popularity of Adventure Paths as evidence that this sort of behavior at the table is pretty common.

I think there's a fair bit of 'borrowing trouble' for the sake of an example going on here. Persuasion is a skill in one ed of D&D (and that seems to be where the example's coming from) and it's not exactly spelled out that it should be used to dictate PC behavior.

I said no such thing. Saying that somethibg isn’t that complicated isn’t the same as saying anyone who doesn’t get it is a moron.

Saying that something is simple enough for a not-any-kinda-prodigy 8 year old is saying that anyone who finds it complex lacks mental faculties comparable to said 8yo. Maybe that's not how you meant it - IDK how else you could've meant it, but benefit of the doubt & all - but you said it.
Feel free to re-phrase it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is not a thread in the D&D sub-forum, though. It's in General RPG.

IIRC, Lanefan has far more experience with classic D&D than any other system. So I guess he tends to go there. Heck, Hussar, Elfcrusher, and I have been /mostly/ talking in terms of D&D in this thread, too.

This is strong stuff - no legitimate reason? - really? - and also rests on a mistake. What do you think action declaration looks like in systems with proper social resolution mechanics?

Hopefully about like any other declaration, if the system is at all consistent...

 

[Hriston]

I think I found it!

One solution I haven't seen yet is using something similar to The Shadow of Yesterday's Keys where you get XP for roleplaying certain personality traits, flaws, etc.

5e doesn't directly link XP to roleplaying, but it does have Inspiration, which is something I think DMs (at least on ENWorld) tend to underutilize. Just as the DM can award Inspiration for roleplaying an ideal, bond or flaw, why not award Inspiration when a player allows their character to experience interesting complications as a result of a die roll (or however you want to word this). You don't even have to make a hard-and-fast rule with it. Go ahead and give Inspiration when a player plays along instead of digs their heels in, and tell them why they got the Inspiration so that other players can get the hint.

At least, that's how I'd deal with it.

The difference between what you're saying here and what I said in my post, which may not have been very clear, is that while you seem to advocate for giving Inspiration to players when they "play along" with an adverse outcome to the use of a social mechanic, I'm suggesting using Inspiration as a social mechanic that reinforces players choosing for their characters to acquiesce to the proposal of an NPC when doing so is in keeping with their character's personal characteristics. Of course, this requires the DM to be at least familiar with what those characteristics are.