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

 

[Lanefan]

I really don't think it is. I think it just looks that way to you. There's always the next orc.

Typically, when I see people on the forums raise objections to this approach, it's from a viewpoint that they'll forever be subject to some other person's decision. But don't worry - sometimes it's you who gets to decide what to do with the proverbial orc.

Yes; and then I'm subjecting everyone else to my decisions, which is just as bad only in reverse.

Presumably all the players are properly socialized humans who share spotlight with each other.

That's a really big and rarely-true assumption there - particularly in our hobby where we tend to attract those of all different degrees of socialization and willingness to claim (hog) or share (shy) the spotlight.

First, I think "table mechanics" is a silly term and looks suspiciously like you want to conflate actual game mechanics with an agreement the players have made about how to play the game that exists separate from the game mechanics.

Table mechanics is my own term for all the social-contract out-of-character how-to-play stuff that isn't covered by the actual game rules.

But anyway, as I mentioned previously, a player might want to have an exchange that suggests something about his or her character or the relationship his or her character has with the character with whom he or she disagrees.

Perhaps - provided there's a chance of changing the original players/character's mind. Otherwise it's futile.

You as a player will have agreed to an approach that accepts the idea of a fellow player and adds to it, rather than negates or subverts it. In this example, another player's idea is not to kill the orc. You would agree to that. Your character may take issue and you may decide to play that out for color, but ultimately he or she does nothing to negate or subvert that.

Unless I'm playing a meek submissive character who goes along with everything (an extremely rare occurrence), all I can say to that is not bloody likely.

If I as a player don't have the agency to - barring the successful application of in-game magical compulsions - have my character think for itself and make its own decisions at all times, what's the point?

And if I can't stop or prevent someone from doing something stupid...or be prevented by others from doing so (frequently necessary!) then it'd be an overly-forgiving DM indeed who didn't kill us off on a regular basis.

I suppose if you wanted to make a game of torture for some reason (a red flag for me), you would still be keeping your agreement as long as you kept the orc alive. Your agreement is binding as long as you want to be seen as the kind of person who keeps his agreements. I realize that's not for everyone.

Torture is only for low-level types. After that it's easier just to kill 'em and use Speak With Dead.

As for keeping agreements, my agreement is to play my character to whatever personality I've given it. Many of the characters I tend to play are either leader-types (e.g. noble knight or cleric, or military-trained legionnaire), wanna-be leader types who couldn't really lead if they tried (e.g. a Jack Sparrow knock-off, or (in 3e) a very low wisdom character with the Leadership feat), or free-thinkers to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word and the only counsel to which they will usually listen is their own.

I most certainly don't agree to agree with other people just because I have to. There's too much of that garbage in real life (thinking of corporate leaders and politicians who surround themselves with sycophantic 'yes-men' whose only function is to agree with everything) - I sure don't want it in the game, regardless of whether I'm the leader or the yes-man.

I'll agree to consider each situation on its own merits, as filtered through what my character would think/say/do, and in each case either agree, disagree, or not care and do something else entirely: the argument's whether to go left or right? I go back and look for another exit...

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

Yes; and then I'm subjecting everyone else to my decisions, which is just as bad only in reverse.

If you really think about it, in any other approach someone's idea is always going to win out. It's just how long it takes to get to implementation. Sometimes you win the debate. Sometimes the guy or gal next to you does. The same outcome occurs here but without the debate which means you move forward faster.

That's a really big and rarely-true assumption there - particularly in our hobby where we tend to attract those of all different degrees of socialization and willingness to claim (hog) or share (shy) the spotlight.

I would say game with the people who are socialized according to one's tastes. I don't game with people who hog the spotlight or who are too shy to step up. We send those people to your game.

Perhaps - provided there's a chance of changing the original players/character's mind. Otherwise it's futile.

It's futile if changing minds is your goal. As I said, there would be some other goal in play there - establishing color, perhaps.

Unless I'm playing a meek submissive character who goes along with everything (an extremely rare occurrence), all I can say to that is not bloody likely.

If I as a player don't have the agency to - barring the successful application of in-game magical compulsions - have my character think for itself and make its own decisions at all times, what's the point?

And if I can't stop or prevent someone from doing something stupid...or be prevented by others from doing so (frequently necessary!) then it'd be an overly-forgiving DM indeed who didn't kill us off on a regular basis.

Your character can't think for itself. Or make any decisions. You do that for it. Whatever you say it does is what it does. Your concern would necessarily have to be that you don't like the constraint placed on YOU, not your character. And that's fair enough. For us, the benefits far outweigh the constraint placed on the players.

Torture is only for low-level types. After that it's easier just to kill 'em and use Speak With Dead.

As for keeping agreements, my agreement is to play my character to whatever personality I've given it. Many of the characters I tend to play are either leader-types (e.g. noble knight or cleric, or military-trained legionnaire), wanna-be leader types who couldn't really lead if they tried (e.g. a Jack Sparrow knock-off, or (in 3e) a very low wisdom character with the Leadership feat), or free-thinkers to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word and the only counsel to which they will usually listen is their own.

I most certainly don't agree to agree with other people just because I have to. There's too much of that garbage in real life (thinking of corporate leaders and politicians who surround themselves with sycophantic 'yes-men' whose only function is to agree with everything) - I sure don't want it in the game, regardless of whether I'm the leader or the yes-man.

I'll agree to consider each situation on its own merits, as filtered through what my character would think/say/do, and in each case either agree, disagree, or not care and do something else entirely: the argument's whether to go left or right? I go back and look for another exit...

Lanefan

Sure, some folks live for that debate at the table. We don't. If we're going to get into an argument, it's going to be with an NPC or monster as part of a social interaction challenge. All a debate at the table between players does is stop forward progress in the game.

A couple years ago, I invited some WotC forum folks to play in a text-based game with this approach and I shared the transcripts. The idea was to create examples of play. We would have 2-hour sessions every week on Roll20. A frequent comment from readers was that we got more done in those two hours than they got done in their 4 to 6 hours in-person games. And that was largely because the party was always moving in the same direction, getting to decisions faster, and working as a team. There were no arguments or debates to slow them down. We got a pretty big module done in 40 hours of play while typing instead of talking which is obviously inherently slower thanks, in part, to the approach I've described.

 

[5ekyu]

Its largely focused around what you prioritize.

I played like two sessions once when invited into a super heroes rpg. First session started "outside the mall as police briefed heroes on the sitrep" before the foght started.

Seeing me a lityle confused, the one who invited me said "we just cut to the briefing right off. All that roleplaying stuff of being in your secret id when the alarm went off and who got here first... Slowed things down."

I gave it two sessions to confirm that was accurate then left politely.

Have seen groups where planning the fight was seen as "wasting time" and others where it was a core part of the play, etc.

I can see how "just roll thru disagreements and consider ir roleplaying" can serve well groups who prioritize getting thru content faster.

Not my preference but thats fine. I am from the south so slow cooked flavor is second nature.

 

[aramis erak]

Whatever you say it does is what it does.

Big falsehood there. Making truth of it would read, "Whatever you say it does is what it attempts."

Character success is, in about 90% of games, entirely out of the individual player's hands. Even walking is up to the GM's decision... because there might be a sheen of hyper-slick ooze-slime that the PC didn't notice. Talking might be compromised by a bit of alum powder in the air or a silence spell.

The only area where the argument is valid is the character's "internal monologue"... and even then, most games have rules for imposing changes there.

The exceptions to the control limit of "attempt" tend to be storygames which are not also RPGs. Games like Once Upon A Time and Aye, Dark Overlord.

Apocalypse World is almost there, too - only the moves are mechanical; everything else is purely the narrating player's decision.

But those are exceptions. The general rule in RPGs, tho not stated as such in clear terms, "You only succeed when the GM chooses to let you, or goes to the dice and the dice let you."

 

[iserith]

Big falsehood there. Making truth of it would read, "Whatever you say it does is what it attempts."

Sure. My point stands. The player is in control of what the character attempts, as you say.

 

[Lanefan]

If you really think about it, in any other approach someone's idea is always going to win out. It's just how long it takes to get to implementation. Sometimes you win the debate. Sometimes the guy or gal next to you does. The same outcome occurs here but without the debate which means you move forward faster.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes both win, meaning the party splits with some doing one thing/going one way and some another.

Sometimes neither win, because a third and more interesting/palatable option arose due to either someone's arbitrary action or the run-of-play discussion.

I would say game with the people who are socialized according to one's tastes. I don't game with people who hog the spotlight or who are too shy to step up. We send those people to your game.

I play with friends I know from outside the game, and we (usually) accept each other's sometimes-lack of social skills as a simple fact of life.

It's futile if changing minds is your goal.

Really? What other possible reason for getting into a debate could there be?

Your character can't think for itself. Or make any decisions. You do that for it. Whatever you say it does is what it does. Your concern would necessarily have to be that you don't like the constraint placed on YOU, not your character. And that's fair enough. For us, the benefits far outweigh the constraint placed on the players.

As long as you and your players are cool with giving up that agency (and, of course, that your players realize what they're giving up) then no problem.

And otherwise you're needlessly splitting hairs here: if I'm playing a character who likes to think for itself (as opposed, say, to preferring to be told what to do; or being dull of mind and thus not up to much thinking) then I'm going to make sure it is played as thinking for itself.

Sure, some folks live for that debate at the table. We don't. If we're going to get into an argument, it's going to be with an NPC or monster as part of a social interaction challenge. All a debate at the table between players does is stop forward progress in the game.

And are those social interaction challenges roleplayed all the way through, or are they also mechanically cut short?

Forward progress in the game is a fine goal, but there's all of life in which to accomplish it - it doesn't have to all be done tonight.

A couple years ago, I invited some WotC forum folks to play in a text-based game with this approach and I shared the transcripts. The idea was to create examples of play. We would have 2-hour sessions every week on Roll20. A frequent comment from readers was that we got more done in those two hours than they got done in their 4 to 6 hours in-person games. And that was largely because the party was always moving in the same direction, getting to decisions faster, and working as a team. There were no arguments or debates to slow them down. We got a pretty big module done in 40 hours of play while typing instead of talking which is obviously inherently slower thanks, in part, to the approach I've described.

No doubt this was in part due to those players' expressly giving up their agency to debate or argue against what someone else decided to do.

I'm not always much of a one for player rights or entitlement, but this is one agency you'd have to pry out of my cold dead hands.

Lan-"and sometimes more character development comes out of one successful argument where someone's mind is changed than from years of other play"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. My point stands. The player is in control of what the character attempts, as you say.

And with this I entirely agree.

It doesn't matter how (or even if) that attempt gets resolved - the fact of the player being in charge of declaring it and able within the system to declare it is enough.

Lan-"but note this principle applies - or should - just as much when players declare conflicting actions for their PCs, or actions which put their PCs in conflict"-efan

 

[iserith]

Sometimes both win, meaning the party splits with some doing one thing/going one way and some another.

Sometimes neither win, because a third and more interesting/palatable option arose due to either someone's arbitrary action or the run-of-play discussion.

On the former, maybe so. On the latter, someone came up with that third option. But ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: You get your way sometimes. Other people get their way sometimes. Rather than debate, you move forward.

Really? What other possible reason for getting into a debate could there be?

As I've said several times now - for color.

As long as you and your players are cool with giving up that agency (and, of course, that your players realize what they're giving up) then no problem.

And otherwise you're needlessly splitting hairs here: if I'm playing a character who likes to think for itself (as opposed, say, to preferring to be told what to do; or being dull of mind and thus not up to much thinking) then I'm going to make sure it is played as thinking for itself.

Enjoy your game-delaying debates then. We'll happily figure out a way to both play a character with strong opinions that also doesn't hold up forward progress.

And are those social interaction challenges roleplayed all the way through, or are they also mechanically cut short?

Forward progress in the game is a fine goal, but there's all of life in which to accomplish it - it doesn't have to all be done tonight.

Life's too short to spend too much time arguing over what is usually a relatively pointless matter.

The social interaction challenges are over when the challenge is either won or lost as with any other challenge.

No doubt this was in part due to those players' expressly giving up their agency to debate or argue against what someone else decided to do.

I'm not always much of a one for player rights or entitlement, but this is one agency you'd have to pry out of my cold dead hands.

I don't recall asking you to play in my game. So you're safe. For now.

 

[Lanefan]

On the former, maybe so. On the latter, someone came up with that third option. But ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: You get your way sometimes. Other people get their way sometimes. Rather than debate, you move forward.

Rather than move forward in a direction some might not want to go, you debate until a resolution arises even if it takes all night.

Clear majorities are one thing - the minority gets heard, majority rules, and on you go; leaving the minority behind if it comes to that. But evenly-split debates are another thing, and need to be given all the time they require to resolve.

As I've said several times now - for color.

Ok, allow me to rephrase: what other possible relevant reason for getting into a debate could there be? If I've no hope of changing someone's mind due to an arbitrary external rule, why would I ever bother? Colour is not a relevant reason.

Enjoy your game-delaying debates then. We'll happily figure out a way to both play a character with strong opinions that also doesn't hold up forward progress.

Fine until those strong opinions clash, at which point either the system gives way or someone's characterization does.

Life's too short to spend too much time arguing over what is usually a relatively pointless matter.

It's a known thing that the most trivial parts of any adventure often take the greatest amount of time. Embrace it!

The social interaction challenges are over when the challenge is either won or lost as with any other challenge.

So, mechanically cut short, then; rather than roleplayed through to their conclusion? (as you may have seen in other threads, I have a very low opinion regarding the use of mechanics to resolve things that can be roleplayed through in person at the table)

I don't recall asking you to play in my game. So you're safe. For now.

For now.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

Rather than move forward in a direction some might not want to go, you debate until a resolution arises even if it takes all night.

Clear majorities are one thing - the minority gets heard, majority rules, and on you go; leaving the minority behind if it comes to that. But evenly-split debates are another thing, and need to be given all the time they require to resolve.

Where is that written?

Ok, allow me to rephrase: what other possible relevant reason for getting into a debate could there be? If I've no hope of changing someone's mind due to an arbitrary external rule, why would I ever bother? Colour is not a relevant reason.

And where is that written?

Fine until those strong opinions clash, at which point either the system gives way or someone's characterization does.

There's no clashing under this approach.

So, mechanically cut short, then; rather than roleplayed through to their conclusion? (as you may have seen in other threads, I have a very low opinion regarding the use of mechanics to resolve things that can be roleplayed through in person at the table)

Mechanics come into play as appropriate to the game.

I've been answering questions and handling objections on forums with regard to this topic for about 8 years now. It's always the same tired stuff usually from a given subset of posters on a given forum, sometimes the same people on multiple forums. All the while, I've been inviting a lot of posters to my one-shots and campaigns. If my Roll20 stats are to be believed, it's somewhere over 500 people, most of whom have never played with such an approach, some of whom objected to it previously. Here's what they say: "Oh, that was it? I hardly noticed it. But we sure did get a lot done and I had a blast."