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

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Well the self destructive bit was just an example to show how people can ignore even helpful advice or requests. But it was to illustrate how an even less extreme example could come up. So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.

How do you allow for that?

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?

That’s a fair point. But in a system that doesn’t have such a mechanic built in, what do you use? In 5E, how would you handle this?

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.

I agree with you about players being cooperative. That’s my experience as well. And although I’m not a big fan of the adventure path model overall because I find them too linear and too....inevitable?....I do think that this is likely pretty common.

However, I think the examples need not be so fundamental to the adventure. It’s not always the story hook that’s in question. Usually no rolls for that are really necessary, as you mentioned.

But what about other instances of Persuasion or Bluff or other social mechanics? What about something like the PCs confronting a suspected villain, and the villain makes a high Bluff check. Do you require that the PCs believe him? Does it solely depend on the die roll or can one of the PCs say “I don’t care what this guy says, I don’t believe him”?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Like compelling an aspect by giving the player a Fate point in, well, Fate. Sure.

Of course, this requires the DM to be at least familiar with what those characteristics are.

Which is kinda a pain in 5e, which puts plenty on the DMs plate as it is.

Well the self destructive bit was just an example to show how people can ignore even helpful advice or requests. But it was to illustrate how an even less extreme example could come up. So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.
How do you allow for that?

Just have better rules. It's not that there shouldn't as Lanefan suggest, not be rules (substitute the social abilities of the players), or not even be scenes were an NPC's social traits might be relevant in a resolution also involving the traits of a PC. It's just that the rules need to be workable. Fate, for the above instance, has workable rules for the GM getting a PC to do something that's in-character for the PC, but clearly a bad idea from the player's PoV - compelling aspects. 5e does not. It has a Persuade proficiency that's, I think, clearly meant to used to resolve actions where the player has the PC do something persuasive, but could, with the 'what's good for the PC goose is good for the NPC gander' philosophy of DMing, be applied in reverse.

That’s a fair point. But in a system that doesn’t have such a mechanic built in, what do you use? In 5E, how would you handle this?

I think, in WotC era D&D in general, you could frame the negotiation around the reward or resources the PCs would receive if they accept the mission. It might be a skill challenge in 4e or a group check in 4e or 5e, or a gimme for the diplomancer 'face' in 3.5, but it could side-step the issue.

But what about other instances of Persuasion or Bluff or other social mechanics? What about something like the PCs confronting a suspected villain, and the villain makes a high Bluff check. Do you require that the PCs believe him? Does it solely depend on the die roll or can one of the PCs say “I don’t care what this guy says, I don’t believe him”?

I think Bluff v Sense Motive/Insight tends to get used more like perception. Take it behind the screen in 5e and you're fine. "Do I think he could be lying?'" ::dice rattle behind the screen:: "He seems sincere to you."

 

[Shasarak]

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.

It sounds in some ways like a kind of reverse skill challenge where the NPC is trying to defeat the PCs to me.

/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.

Is that not a completely different issue? If you are playing though an Adventure Path then sure the Players have agreed to follow the rails but in sandbox play then the Players should be able to choose the hooks they want to follow after.

 

[Hussar]

Well the self destructive bit was just an example to show how people can ignore even helpful advice or requests. But it was to illustrate how an even less extreme example could come up. So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.

How do you allow for that?
/snip

Again, this example suffers from what is likely going to happen in play. When the DM drops that giant honking sign saying "ADVENTURE THIS WAY", most players are going to follow along. And, frankly, if the DM drops these honking big adventure signs and the players frequently ignore it, then, well, that's probably a table issue.

But what about other instances of Persuasion or Bluff or other social mechanics? What about something like the PCs confronting a suspected villain, and the villain makes a high Bluff check. Do you require that the PCs believe him? Does it solely depend on the die roll or can one of the PCs say “I don’t care what this guy says, I don’t believe him”?

This is a much better example, IMO. This is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. The dice have said, "you believe this guy". That's what the game is telling you. Not the DM, the game. The mechanics are informing the player what his character thinks. To me, it's a better role player that will take that and run with it, even though the player himself might think it's bad. For the player to just unilaterally over rule the rules, is bad play, IMO. Just like we don't want players to declare that that attack missed because he dodged, we shouldn't let players just declare, "Nope, no matter what the game says, I don't believe him".

It sounds in some ways like a kind of reverse skill challenge where the NPC is trying to defeat the PCs to me.

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

Is that not a completely different issue? If you are playing though an Adventure Path then sure the Players have agreed to follow the rails but in sandbox play then the Players should be able to choose the hooks they want to follow after.

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.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Is pointing to the influence and the effects of marketing campaigns and socially-embedded norms and practices a good way to rebut/I] the tenability/verisimilitude of social mechanics?

I'm not sure how the "no mechanics" view of the rules allows for these phenomena!

So a miller making an incredibly persuasive plea to save his daughter, some people simply would not get involved no matter how persuasive his request might be.

Well, if some people aren't persuaded doesn't that tend to show that it was not, in fact, persuasive?

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.

Fireball uses a different DC for each person in the area. I'm not sure that blowing things up is inherently entitled to table time that talking to people isn't.

As to the "different people respond differently" question:

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).​

Each of (1) to (4) allows for different people to respond differently.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Just on this point - I agree with your particular example.

But Luke Crane does comment, in one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, that in his experience the use of social mechanics to resolve PC vs PC arguments does (i) help the group at the table reach consensus on what to do next, and (ii) makes players feel more comfortable to have their PC argue with another PC, precisely because there's a way of resolving it at the table which sees the game go on, rather than having everything grind to a halt due to this social issue with no straightforward resolution.

In my Cortex+ Heroic game the PCs argue with one another from time to time, inflicting mental or emotional stress on one another (because some of the PCs have milestones which yield XP when this happens, some of the players are always on the lookout for a chance to do this). In my 4e game once, and in my Classic Traveller game more than once, I've used an impromptu social mechanic to resolve a seemingly interminable PC-vs-PC argument about what to do next - eg in Traveller I have each side roll, with a side that includes a noble, or a PC with Leader expertise, getting bonuses.

The side that loses agrees to go along with the side that wins - at the table first and foremost, and therefore in the fiction also.

 

[5ekyu]

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?

"To me, saying “nope, I the player don’t think that therefore that’s what my character thinks/feels” is poor role play. "

So glad we get to the good roleplay vs bad roleplay. Its always such a great straw man and so productive.

Nobody is saying or even close to the player think equaling character think bad roleplay.

Its the notion of **who** in the game setting decides what the character thinks thats really at point.

Grumpy is absolutely one **possible** emotional response to tired, but so are a bunch of others including silly giggly, so is sad, so is wistful.

I as a player can have the character roleplay any number of those, but how is anything gained by the gm,deciding he gets to tell me which to do?

The line being crossed is the one between the gm describing events and actions and the gm defining you character's reaction.

Put another way, oh good roleplayer savant, i am **not** roleplaying my character if all i am doing is what the GM tells me i have to do cuz the GM has chosen my reaction to the events for me.

Many roleplayers every day, while maybe not as good roleplayer as you, make choices in character on their on that they the player would never do. They even sometimes make decisions in character that the player in that context knows is not the "goid choice" but is "what my character would do." They are roleplaying **their** character's.

The player who has the GM tell them "you are persuaded" and who then goes down that road is roleplaying their **GM's** character.

YMMV.

 

[5ekyu]

It sounds in some ways like a kind of reverse skill challenge where the NPC is trying to defeat the PCs to me.



Is that not a completely different issue? If you are playing though an Adventure Path then sure the Players have agreed to follow the rails but in sandbox play then the Players should be able to choose the hooks they want to follow after.

Also, how compelling is the arhument to the wizard who really realky wants to complete the research after he finalky finished the quest for the third and final macguffin?
Or the cleric who realky is more interested in getting the needed supplies to the temple?

Or how about the really really convincing argument by the expertise persuasion guy to go do the thing but to do the thing means dropping the thing we were after? Sounds like great way to stop those meddlesom kids.

I make sure my players know my PCs are not me and their suggestions are therefore not my suggestions.

So when an offer paying good money for a long escort goody goody plus orphans comes up, its their choice whether to take it or stay on mission. Sometimes it will be legit, other times its a wiley BBEG trying to literally "buy,more time" and solve his "meddling kids" problem without massive bloodshed and risk.

Would be lots easier for the BBEG/M if that "which matters more to us" **choice** was a hired pitch man's expertise backed roll away.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] - you are presuming, of course, that the pitch man is always successful. After all, I'm advocating a mechanical resolution here, which means that success is never guaranteed.

Flip it over. How likely is it that the 8 Wis barbarian is going to disbelieve that bluff? You are saying that it's good roleplaying when the 8 wis barbarian (or whatever) chooses to ignore the rolls at the table because you, the player, feel like it. To me, and, hey, you can get all snarky about it all you like, I think that's poor play.

Play the character that you brought to the table. If that means that sometimes your character is influenced by stuff that you the player aren't then so be it. I'm a very big fan of games like Burning Wheel and FATE and Blades in the Dark which actually have mechanics in place to achieve this. I do wish that D&D would bring them in too.

If we're honestly going to promote the idea that the three pillars of the game are supposed to be equal, then how does it make sense that one of the pillars has virtually no mechanics and what mechanics there are, can be ignored by the player any time she feels like it?

This, again to me, seems like a perfect place for a rules option module in something like Unearthed Arcana. Something that a table could choose to use if it so desires.

 

[Afrodyte]

I think I found 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.

That seems like how it's supposed to be used in 5e. I thought everybody did that (I know I do), but I guess not.