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

 

[Guest 6801328]

Still about what the character thinks. On failed perception he hears an owl, thinks, "oh, that might be important" looks over in that direction, and misses the stealthy enemy's movement; on the same roll but with a higher perception bonus such that he succeeds, he hears the owl (because success doesn't make you deaf anymore than failure makes you blind), thinks "that's just an owl," ignores the distraction and spots the enemy.

It's skill checks "telling" you how your character thinks & reacts.

I think we're starting to get into neurobiology and the regions of the brain here.

Sure...everything we humans do & perceive involves circuits in our brains lighting up, so in that sense hearing something is "thinking". But are you really arguing that there's just one kind of brain activity that covers motor reflexes, sensory perception, and whether or not to accept the Duke's offer? (I mean, this could easily get into a debate about free will vs. the illusion of free will, etc.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think we're starting to get into neurobiology and the regions of the brain here.

Sure...everything we humans do & perceive involves circuits in our brains lighting up, so in that sense hearing something is "thinking". But are you really arguing that there's just one kind of brain activity that covers motor reflexes, sensory perception, and whether or not to accept the Duke's offer? (I mean, this could easily get into a debate about free will vs. the illusion of free will, etc.)

It's making a judgement. You're keeping watch. Which sensory cues do you investigate and which do you ignore? In a game with a stealth/perception resolution system, those decisions about how your character thinks & acts are taken away from you, and replaced with a die roll.

I think maybe the fiction is being evaluated in the wrong way. If a scene progresses with stakes, bonuses, DCs, & rolls all above board, then they can be resolved, and the resulting fiction crafted in accord with the characters involved. So, say, your character, a woodsy ranger type who knows the local area well, is standing watch. He fails a check to notice a goblin sneaking by. The DM could narrate, unilaterally, "the night passes uneventfully, the wind rustles some bushes, and owl hoots and distracts you for a few moments, but you notice nothing important." You might come back and object "my character knows the area really well, he wouldn't be distracted by an owl if that were normal for the area, and if it weren't he'd've investigated it!" That could then break down into an argument where you're essentially arguing you should have succeeded, when, really, you've failed, and the objective should be to narrate that appropriately. Instead, the DM might ask, "well, what might have distracted your character long enough for someone to sneak by?" and run with that if it makes sense.

 

[Lanefan]

This distinction somehow feels artificial, fake, weak, nonexistant, and forced as a means to avoid the possibility that players be subject to similar social rules as NPCs. I don't think this is a particularly compelling argument. Why is that not true? That is the glaring gap that exists in the argument. Because it sounds like you are telling GMs that they are not getting in the headspace of the NPCs in the manner that players do with their PCs. That's almost offensive towards GMs. I have seen GMs more in their NPCs headspace than I have seen players with their PCs. So it seems that your "difference" has only been artificially constructed to preserve an "immunity" for your PC from being subjected to the same mechanics that GM NPCs are subjected to following.

When I DM/GM I like this approach because, having (largely) perfect knowledge of the world I can't really negotiate in good faith. I don't have to worry about being either too lenient or too adversarial with the players. So, yeah, maybe I'm being "offensive" toward myself, but I don't want to be in that position. The dice decide.

I assume, on the other hand, that players are maneuvering for what is most advantageous for their goals (regardless of whether those are powergaming or roleplaying goals). Good. They should be. They don't need dice to tell them what they think.

And the problem here is that you're both right.

Ideally the DM plays the NPCs just like a player plays a PC, as [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] suggests. But in reality a DM can't easily do that because her knowledge will always* vastly exceed that of the NPC she's playing, and she has to be very careful that said meta-knowledge doesn't creep in. Hence, in situations where it might, dice are a handy fallback.

* - unless said NPC is an omniscient deity, at which point the DM can turn loose all the knowledge she has.

Lanefan

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's making a judgement. You're keeping watch. Which sensory cues do you investigate and which do you ignore? In a game with a stealth/perception resolution system, those decisions about how your character thinks & acts are taken away from you, and replaced with a die roll.

I think maybe the fiction is being evaluated in the wrong way. If a scene progresses with stakes, bonuses, DCs, & rolls all above board, then they can be resolved, and the resulting fiction crafted in accord with the characters involved. So, say, your character, a woodsy ranger type who knows the local area well, is standing watch. He fails a check to notice a goblin sneaking by. The DM could narrate, unilaterally, "the night passes uneventfully, the wind rustles some bushes, and owl hoots and distracts you for a few moments, but you notice nothing important." You might come back and object "my character knows the area really well, he wouldn't be distracted by an owl if that were normal for the area, and if it weren't he'd've investigated it!" That could then break down into an argument where you're essentially arguing you should have succeeded, when, really, you've failed, and the objective should be to narrate that appropriately. Instead, the DM might ask, "well, what might have distracted your character long enough for someone to sneak by?" and run with that if it makes sense.

We're basically in agreement here. Where I think we might differ is when the dice would result in telling a player, "You believe the NPC" even when the player does not believe he NPC. Or "You are persuaded by the Duke" even when the player is not persuaded by the Duke. Or "You like broccoli" even when the player does not want his character to like broccoli.

I can't tell if I am doing a poor job of describing the distinction, or whether there is some resistance to wanting to accept the existence of that distinction*. None of the examples I've seen so far fall even remotely into any kind of grey area for me, but apparently they do for others. And even if such a grey area is found, as it has been said "the existence of dawn does not invalidate the difference between day and night."

*(I do note that some of those in this thread most opposed to my interpretation are also some of the most vocal defenders of Warlords, and an acceptance of the distinction in question here might validate my main argument against Warlords. Or maybe I'm imagining things....)

In any event, let's take the argument to the other extreme: if dice rolls for mental/emotional actions take precedence over player thoughts/desires, how do we handle puzzles and riddles? If the player solves a puzzle, but his character fails an Int check, does that mean he fails the puzzle? If so, why bother to have actual puzzles in the game? Why not just describe them abstractly? "You encounter some kind of puzzle with spinning wheels and shapes and symbols on them. Make an Int check to see if you can solve it." "Yup, you find the solution, and with a click the doors open..."

Thoughts?

 

[aramis erak]

What if the party agree to rescue the princess, do so, and then themselves hold her for ransom because they know that cheapass Duke is good for tens of thousands of g.p. and he only offered a measly 100 for the return of his daughter.

Never mind that on the PCs telling the daughter how low a value he puts on her it might not be a kidnapping any more: she might just throw in with the PCs then and there and go off adventuring!

Given that I don't allow Evil alignment, everyone just sacrificed session XP for major alignment violation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We're basically in agreement here. Where I think we might differ is when the dice would result in telling a player, "You believe the NPC" even when the player does not believe he NPC. Or "You are persuaded by the Duke" even when the player is not persuaded by the Duke.

It's not really any different. The issue isn't in having a mechanic that might do that, the issue is more in using the mechanic consistently - 'framing of the resolution' or something (insert Forgite gobbledygook) - and that can depend heavily on the nature of system and the style of the table.

For instance, in 5e D&D, players tend to declare actions and it's the DMs job to narrate the result, calling rolls to resolve uncertainty if he deems that necessary. That leaves a lot of room to get boxed into this kind of situation, since the system doesn't make a lot of provisions for NPC-initiated tasks.
Technically the DM doesn't even need to roll, he can open with, "You are on a mission from the Duke to rescue his daughter." "But, Idawanna!" "Tough, you've been persuaded to do so, I determined there was no chance of failure! Mwahahahah!"

You can avoid that, in most systems, anyway, by taking the resolution mechanic as only that, it determines a result, it resolves a question, does A happen or does B. How the result came about and what the various characters involved think/feel about it can be something worked out among the DM & players. If you feel there's no way for B to happen, you should also probably bring that up before a test that could result in it is resolved - assuming the system in question empowers the player to do so, in the first place.

"You like broccoli" even when the player does not want his character to like broccoli.

So, like if the master chef prepares broccoli in a way that makes it look, feel, and taste nothing like broccoli, you still won't like it?

I can't tell if I am doing a poor job of describing the distinction, or whether there is some resistance to wanting to accept the existence of that distinction

There's significant resistance to the distinction, for me, at least. Or, rather, there's a different distinction I'm more concerned with: The distinction between resolving a task based on the abilities of the character imagined to be performing the task, rather than on the abilities of the player of that character.

In any event, let's take the argument to the other extreme: if dice rolls for mental/emotional actions take precedence over player thoughts/desires, how do we handle puzzles and riddles?

It depends on the nature of the challenge. If it's something the character is going to solve, 'within the fiction' of the game by dent of it's faculties, knowledge and experience, then it should be a test of that character, like an INT or WIS check in 5e, possibly with a proficiency applying. If it's something the party can put their heads together on, it could be a group check (a really neat little mechanic, actually, IMHO). The degree to which the DM describes the challenge could be similar to that of how most things get described. "It's a sliding puzzle lock, you have to move the panels in the right order, to build the right picture or the trap goes off," for instance, might get the idea across, as well as "the goblin stabs you with it's shortsword" ever does. The player isn't given enough information to solve the puzzle, in the first place, anyway, so there shouldn't be any second-guessing.

OTOH, if there's nothing in the character's abilities that have any bearing on the 'puzzle' ("There are three levers next to the door, what do you do?"), it's just arbitrary, you pick the right action or not, then the player is as free to pick that action as any other.

A DM can even design challenges in-between. You present a puzzle, like either of the above, but with added detail and hints that can be gained from successful checks, like Investigation could reveal one of the levers is more worn than the others, or a religion check revealing what the final picture of the puzzle lock should look like. (4e skill challenges could be like that for puzzles - the characters made checks to uncover details and hints until the players could solve it based on that information, or they accumulated their 3 failures).

If so, why bother to have actual puzzles in the game?

Tradition, I suppose. In the olden days, D&D had few rules to model the abilities or knowledge of the character beyond the specific specialties of its class, so many actions were resolved solely through the player doing a convincing job of describing how his character tried to accomplish something, and the DM judging (often, in the case of young DMs like myself back then, ludicrously, based on 0 applicable life experience) whether it worked or not. Games are better than that, now, but many players & DMs still don't trust 'em.

 

[5ekyu]

Social encounters and how the rules work are the most tricky to GM. But here you seem to be advocating that if an NPC rolls a nat. 20 on an attack roll, or another skill against a player, that it's fine that working as per RAW, but if it's a persuade check, you'd walk away from the table?

With the same logic, would you advocate the GM ignoring a nat. 20 from the social skilled character in the group when they try to convince the King to up the reward?

This sort of thing would have to be a house rule agreed upon before the game, and would be a pretty odd one at that.

First, nat 20 on skill checks are not auto suuccess or crits in alk systems like hit!attacks are. 5e already makes them differently.

Second, if the game rules allowed npcs aka gm to roll persuasion to force us to take actions thru social skills on a natural 20, essentially handing every tom dick and harry control over our players... Thats not a setting system game i would go for at the start.

Third, if the system (as 5e and many) defined different impacts for social vs npc vs pc and the gm changed it on the fly, i would thank them for their time and leave.

Always amazed at how popular it is for gms to find more and more ways they need to control player characters.

 

[5ekyu]

"It's skill checks "telling" you how your character thinks & reacts. "

No... Stealth roll determinedcwhether you spotted the npc and there are lots of ways that resolves without also telling you your character's thought.

Made roll get spotted info. Failed roll get unspotted info.

Dukes persuasion...

Made roll i present a compelling case then you. You get persuasive input.

Failed roll i make unconvincing case, you get non-persuasive input.

In each case you then choose your reactions.

 

[Caliburn101]

Oh, gosh, I've been put in my place. I'm sure this has nothing to do with your general annoyance with me. I'll try harder to adhere to your expectations in the future.

/yawn

If you didn't care, you wouldn't reply.

/rolls eyes

Why not change your name to 'Crushedelf'? It would after all better suit your habit of playing the 'poor victim' of every 'mean forum member' that has the temerity to disagree with your arguments, or the willingness to express common sense advice anywhere in your vicinity.

#dontfeedthetroll

 

[Hussar]

I really hope you are being disingenuous with that question, as a rhetorical technique to suggest a contradiction in...and thus discredit...the underlying opinion.

If you genuinely don't understand why it would suck to have a DM do that let me know and I will spell out the answer.

But, you've repeatedly stated that magical mind control is okay. Your problem is with non-magical influences. So, why is this a problem?

Would I like this? Probably not. At least, not after the first couple of times. But, then again, I'm a lot more lenient about being a good little player and following the DM's hooks. Coming to the game with the idea that I'm going to do whatever I want to do and get annoyed at the DM for not letting me indulge whatever whim I happen to have at the time is not an approach to the game that I take.