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]

ultimately, no one can actually force anyone to do something by word alone

I'm not interested in the semantics of the word "force" in this context - but clearly some people can cause other people to do things by word alone. This is how everything from social greetings in the street, to asking a store assistant where the Weet Bix are on the shelves, to advertising, to taunting and bullying, work.

There are a few different ways to think about resolving the situation where the king asks the PC to rescue his daughter, and - in the ensuing social resolution process - the GM (for the king) succeeds over the player (for the PC).

(1) The PC receives a buff/augment if carrying out the quest. (This is adapted from how The Riddle of Steel handles its "spiritual attributes'.)

(2) The PC receives a penalty if doing things other than the quest. (This is sort-of how MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic handles it.)

(3) The PC changes his/her ideal to be something like I will rescue the king's daughter. (This is a variant on one way Burning Wheel can handle this sort of thing.)

(4) The PC sincerely agrees to help rescue the king's daughter (this is the default outcome of a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel).​

These seem like mechanics from different games. So I don't know if they allow for PCs to react differently. Three of the four amount to the PCs making the same decision to help the king, and one is where the PC does not help the king.

None of them involves anyone deciding to help the king. There is the grant of a conditional buff or penalty, the changing of a character trait (an Ideal), or the making of a sincere promise.

The player is free to choose what his/her PC does following the establishing of these consequences.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not interested in the semantics of the word "force" in this context - but clearly some people can cause other people to do things by word alone. This is how everything from social greetings in the street, to asking a store assistant where the Weet Bix are on the shelves, to advertising, to taunting and bullying, work.

Sure, that’s entirely true. But that’s why I used the word “force” and not “cause”. I don’t think the difference is a matter of semantics.

None of them involves anyone deciding to help the king. There is the grant of a conditional buff or penalty, the changing of a character trait (an Ideal), or the making of a sincere promise.

The player is free to choose what his/her PC does following the establishing of these consequences.

Ah my bad...I misunderstood what you meant in your original post. Thanks for clarifying.

I could see using some method like 1 or 2 under the right circumstances. Pretty simple to implement, so I like that.

 

[Shasarak]

Not a bad way to put it. I kinda like that. What's the problem?

It does seem a little passive for my tastes. The argument is something that just happens to your character rather then being something that your character does.

Sure, and, like I said, the "king hook" example isn't a particularly good one IMO. There's too much else going on for it to be very useful. But, the villain bluffing the party? I think it's a much better example.

Using the 3e Diplomacy rules for example, it would be amusing for the Party to go into the Temple intending to kill the BBEG and then one conversation later exit accompanying the BBEG on their Realms Shaking scheme.

 

[Shasarak]

No real person is always good or always evil.
No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.

If we were only going to play what real people could do then there is not much in DnD left for us to play.

That is why I was surprised that Alignment was the unrealistic thing.

 

[Hussar]

"Can" is doing a lot of work in that phrase for you, I guess.

Umm, what?

Here's the quote again:

Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.

Sorry, but, it's pretty clear. How well you can delight means you are able to delight them in a range from not liking it at all (failed check) to delighting them very well (a very high check). It's not can you change their minds at all, it's how much you can change their minds.

 

[Jhaelen]

All the alignments do, is describe if your character is more likely to commit good acts, or evil acts.

Okay. But they don't help a player at all to come up with a reason why the character is more likely to commit good or evil acts. So, what purpose do alignments serve, again?

I think you are mistaking the intent of the alignment system. It isn't meant to be the final definition of your characters personality, they are a tool to help you get started. So if you state that your character is lawful good, that is a general description of your character's moral compass. But that doesn't mean that you can't further define your character, and it doesn't mean that your character blindly follows every law.

Then why are there alignment restrictions for classes, spells, and magic items?
Apparently, the game designers cannot decide what alignments should be: Just a loose guideline or a hard restriction? I'm getting ambiguous signals here!

Imagine for a second how you would create a PC if there was no alignment system. You'd come up with a personality and background, describe motivations and goals. Think about what your character likes and dislikes, what he hates, loves, and fears. Then look at the resulting character. Is there anything missing? What purpose does it serve trying to match an alignment to this well-developed character? What do you gain by trying to shoehorn the character into alignment categories? Chances are, if you didn't start out picking an alignment for your character, you won't find one that neatly fits.

Thinking in alignment categories is thinking in boxes, and when has that ever been a good thing?

You could list ANY rule in the game, and come up with an example of how a player may use it to act like a jerk. That doesn't make it an inherent flaw of the system.

Really? How about counting stories about jerks related by players here on ENWorld that result from problems with the alignment system. Then compare it to the number of stories about jerks resulting from the initiative system or weapon proficiencies. I wonder what the result would be?

 

[Sadras]

Having mechanics does not force you to use those mechanics every single time.

True.

My argument is that maybe a more interesting storyline might emerge from using mechanics to place that situation in doubt. As a DM, I love it when the game goes in a direction that I didn't expect and that's what die rolling does for me.

Sure. But who sets up the direction that the characters have to follow if the NPC succeeds on his persuasion check?
How can you not expect the outcome when you as DM stat the NPC, have a clear mind of the NPC's goals/motives and set up the possible directions of play prior to rolling the die.

It seems more the case that the DM won't know the direction of the game when he/she allows for players to decide their own character's fate rather than when the DM sets up all the parameters/possibilities.

I think using Inspiration likes carrots (Fate points) for NPC persuasion or introducing Complications is a better way to deal with it.
i.e. In my example, the homesteads make a Persuasion roll - they succeed.
Complication: That night one of the PCs has a disturbing dream about the party's decision to leave. PC recovers 0 Hit Dice due to the interrupted sleep.

 

[Hussar]

It does seem a little passive for my tastes. The argument is something that just happens to your character rather then being something that your character does.



Using the 3e Diplomacy rules for example, it would be amusing for the Party to go into the Temple intending to kill the BBEG and then one conversation later exit accompanying the BBEG on their Realms Shaking scheme.

But, again, that's presuming that we're using 3e mechanics. That wouldn't be a heck of a lot of fun would it? There's a number of other techniques we can look at other than a simple binary pass/fail check. That's a bit of a strawman isn't it?

Personally, I'm partial to the idea of a sort of skill challenge, or extended skill checks, whatever you want to call them, to come to a conclusion. Could be something as simple as first past the post - whoever can make 5 arguments and 5 skill checks first (perhaps each one opposed, or against a static DC) wins. Or, perhaps a sort of social combat system where you make checks, each success causes X "damage". Take the PC's level vs the NPC's CR and go that way. There's a bunch of options here.

Let's be honest, D&D sucks as far as these sorts of mechanics go.

I'm frankly rather baffled by the push back here. There's all sorts of games out there with social mechanics. It's not like this is some bizarre notion out of thin air. Social combat mechanics have been part of RPG's for decades. It's that D&D has remained stubbornly set in the notion that anything that isn't combat should be free formed.

 

[Hussar]

True.



Sure. But who sets up the direction that the characters have to follow if the NPC succeeds on his persuasion check?
How can you not expect the outcome when you as DM stat the NPC, have a clear mind of the NPC's goals/motives and set up the possible directions of play prior to rolling the die.

It seems more the case that the DM won't know the direction of the game when he/she allows for players to decide their own character's fate rather than when the DM sets up all the parameters/possibilities.

I think using Inspiration likes carrots (Fate points) for NPC persuasion or introducing Complications is a better way to deal with it.
i.e. In my example, the homesteads make a Persuasion roll - they succeed.
Complication: That night one of the PCs has a disturbing dream about the party's decision to leave. PC recovers 0 Hit Dice due to the interrupted sleep.

Fair enough. I'm not arguing that there is one true mechanic out there that will solve all problems. I'm simply arguing that the existence of such mechanics makes for a better game.

In your example, if you truly didn't have a horse in the race (heh, sorry, couldn't resist the joke) and either decision would result in an interesting game, that's when the dice should come out. Sure, the players have their ideas of where they want to go, but, they don't have all the information. Maybe that horse thing would be a ton of fun resulting in all sorts of interesting stuff. I dunno. Hopefully. So, when we break out the mechanics and the players lose and go after the horses, it turns out that that was a great turn for the story of the game. Or, the players win and they carry on their merry way.

In either case, the game should result in something memorable.

 

[Sadras]

Okay. But they don't help a player at all to come up with a reason why the character is more likely to commit good or evil acts. So, what purpose do alignments serve, again?

I see them as descriptors like terms such as elves, outsiders, elemental...etc

So in social encounters like NPC elves might gravitate towards elven PCs and perhaps trust their words more than the human or tiefling in the party, one could have angelic beings sense the Goodness of the PC and act more favourably towards them. That is one way I guess.