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]

The failed Perception roll tells us what the character perceives, not what the character thinks.

Perceiving necessarily includes interpreting, thus thinking. A failed perception check doesn't mean you eyes turned off for a round, it means you missed the significance of one or more sensory ques that were present. It might mean you were looking the wrong way at the wrong time, or were distracted by something.

A given visualization of the results of a check might or might not fit the character concept or the situation, do it's nice when you're left some lattitude...

 

[Caliburn101]

Oh, Cali, of course I care. I just need space. It's not you, it's me.

Remember, we'll always have Tarantia.

You can have the beach house, I'll take the dog...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Perceiving necessarily includes interpreting, thus thinking. A failed perception check doesn't mean you eyes turned off for a round, it means you missed the significance of one or more sensory ques that were present. It might mean you were looking the wrong way at the wrong time, or were distracted by something.

A given visualization of the results of a check might or might not fit the character concept or the situation, do it's nice when you're left some lattitude...

Ok, so that puts us back at the "anything involving brain activity is 'thinking'..." so we're just going in circles.

But that's cool. Plato thought very highly of circles.

 

[Afrodyte]

I understand (and agree with) the narrative goal, but not how that bears on this discussion or how it would unfold mechanically. Do you mean the character sneaking and an NPC failing to detect him, or an NPC sneaking around and a character failing to detect him? Is this pure narrative frosting, or an actual mechanic? (The difference between, "Nope, you don't hear anything but the wind" and "The guard stops and listens, but then you hear him mutter something about raccoons.")

An illustrative example would be great?

Perhaps a mechanic like Lucky, where a player gets to re-roll a failed check?

It also calls to mind roll-then-narrate: maybe you just barely fail a Perception test, even though you suspect something is up (because the DM asked for a check, after all) so you narrate "I thought I heard something, but it's probably just raccoons."

Am I missing your point entirely? Curious.

For the sake of making it relevant, let's paint this scenario.

A PC is keeping watch at camp. The DM calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check for the PC on guard duty to notice anything going on near the camp during the night. The PC rolls a total of 14. Meanwhile, a team of ninjas prepares to ambush the camp. The DC to notice them is 15 (10 + their Stealth bonus).

With a roll that close, the DM decides that the PC on guard duty does hear a rustle in the leaves, but they don't have the right information they need to determine Here Be Ninjas and react accordingly.

Now, to make this a clear-cut example, let's say that the PC on guard duty has a penalty to Wisdom and/or Intelligence, so connecting the dots on the spot may not be their strong suit. And, to make this abundantly clear, let's say that this character's major personality traits do not include jumpy, suspicious or paranoid, and the party has never been ambushed at camp thus far. So, this character has few in-character reasons to go from, "You hear a rustle in the leaves" to, "It's bleeping ninjas."

If the DM is flat-out forbidden from saying that this PC interprets the rustle in the leaves as raccoons or just the wind, what keeps the player from using their personal knowledge that it's probably ninjas as an in-game advantage in this situation (such as not being surprised when the ninjas strike) then claiming that it's what their character knew or thought all along?

Outside of this particular scenario, how do you account for skills like Arcana, History and Investigation without being able, even in a limited fashion, to determine what a character can know, recall, intuit or reason?

 

[Guest 6801328]

For the sake of making it relevant, let's paint this scenario.

A PC is keeping watch at camp. The DM calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check for the PC on guard duty to notice anything going on near the camp during the night. The PC rolls a total of 14. Meanwhile, a team of ninjas prepares to ambush the camp. The DC to notice them is 15 (10 + their Stealth bonus).

With a roll that close, the DM decides that the PC on guard duty does hear a rustle in the leaves, but they don't have the right information they need to determine Here Be Ninjas and react accordingly.

Now, to make this a clear-cut example, let's say that the PC on guard duty has a penalty to Wisdom and/or Intelligence, so connecting the dots on the spot may not be their strong suit. And, to make this abundantly clear, let's say that this character's major personality traits do not include jumpy, suspicious or paranoid, and the party has never been ambushed at camp thus far. So, this character has few in-character reasons to go from, "You hear a rustle in the leaves" to, "It's bleeping ninjas."

If the DM is flat-out forbidden from saying that this PC interprets the rustle in the leaves as raccoons or just the wind, what keeps the player from using their personal knowledge that it's probably ninjas as an in-game advantage in this situation (such as not being surprised when the ninjas strike) then claiming that it's what their character knew or thought all along?

Ah, so the "binary knowledge near miss" problem. This is one reason that traps are so hard to implement (and why, as with puzzles, I largely don't use them).

My p.o.v. on this is that telling the player they hear a rustle, and then relying on them to "roleplay" not believing it is anything more than that, is not fun roleplaying. This gets us into the weeds about "immersion" and "meta-gaming" but telling me that I hear leaves rustling but asking me to not read anything into it because I failed my perception check is the same as asking me to pretend to not know that trolls regenerate.

So although the rustle of leaves that gets dismissed is a common trope in suspenseful movies, it's difficult (impossible?) to implement in a roleplaying game in a way that is actually suspenseful, as opposed to simple play-acting.

I'm guessing, from the above, that you do think it's fun to pretend that you don't know trolls regenerate. In which case we are very unlikely to agree about this issue. But I'm happy to keep discussing it.

Outside of this particular scenario, how do you account for skills like Arcana, History and Investigation without being able, even in a limited fashion, to determine what a character can know, recall, intuit or reason?

Those checks are about facts you know/remember, not how you feel and think. The distinction is clear to me, but perhaps not to others.

EDIT:

The way you'd need to model this, I think...and not that I'm advocating doing so...would require two things:
1) When somebody is on watch, you make several/many secret dice rolls against detailed tables that can produce positives, negatives, false positive, and false negatives.
2) Each time, you ask the player what they do.
3) There is a mechanical cost to "doing something". E.g., each time the player investigates, it could reduce the effectiveness of the rest. If they wake everybody else up, it reduces the effectiveness of rest for everybody.

Again, I wouldn't actually do this, but those are the ingredients to achieve what you are describing in a meaningful, immersive way. For me.

 

[Imaculata]

So, this character has few in-character reasons to go from, "You hear a rustle in the leaves" to, "It's bleeping ninjas."

I think you could prevent this issue entirely by just allowing your players to do what ever they want to do. If they as players suspect an ambush, they are more than welcome to respond accordingly, or at least investigate. After all, the DM wouldn't throw in some random rustle-sound unless it was important.

If the DM is flat-out forbidden from saying that this PC interprets the rustle in the leaves as raccoons or just the wind, what keeps the player from using their personal knowledge that it's probably ninjas as an in-game advantage in this situation (such as not being surprised when the ninjas strike) then claiming that it's what their character knew or thought all along?

I would say that a DM should always be allowed to say something along the lines of: "You hear a soft rustle in the leafs. It could be some small forest animal by the sound of it."

Outside of this particular scenario, how do you account for skills like Arcana, History and Investigation without being able, even in a limited fashion, to determine what a character can know, recall, intuit or reason?

I think what a character knows/recalls/reasons is always a matter of both player and DM input. Sometimes the character knows more than the player, and so the player is reliant on the DM to provide that information. Sometimes the player fills in some of the blanks themselves, without DM input. Sometimes the player simply forgets something, and needs a reminder from the DM, because it is something their character would remember.

The skills are there for when there is doubt about what the character knows/remembers/reasons.

So although the rustle of leaves that gets dismissed is a common trope in suspenseful movies, it's difficult (impossible?) to implement in a roleplaying game in a way that is actually suspenseful, as opposed to simple play-acting.

I completely disagree. I think in fact a lot of suspense can be created due to the player knowing more than their character (similar to the way the audience watching a suspense movie, often knows more than the characters in that movie). Just because you as a player suspect that the rustle is more than just a harmless forest animal, does not mean that you are required to play out your character that way. Sometimes its even a lot of fun to do the thing that everyone else at the table thinks you shouldn't be doing.

For example, I ran a Call of Cthulhu campaign in which two players were breaking into a house at night. Just as they were about to leave, they heard a sound from upstairs... they pondered whether they should investigate. But despite the rest of the players begging them not to go upstairs, of course they did! And boy was it suspenseful. Then when I surprised them with a sudden loud noise of a grandfather clock, some players nearly jumped off their seat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I completely disagree. I think in fact a lot of suspense can be created due to the player knowing more than their character (similar to the way the audience watching a suspense movie, often knows more than the characters in that movie). Just because you as a player suspect that the rustle is more than just a harmless forest animal, does not mean that you are required to play out your character that way. Sometimes its even a lot of fun to do the thing that everyone else at the table thinks you shouldn't be doing.

For example, I ran a Call of Cthulhu campaign in which two players were breaking into a house at night. Just as they were about to leave, they heard a sound from upstairs... they pondered whether they should investigate. But despite the rest of the players begging them not to go upstairs, of course they did! And boy was it suspenseful. Then when I surprised them with a sudden loud noise of a grandfather clock, some players nearly jumped off their seat.

Doh! I clicked XP before you edited! (Just kidding...it's still a good post.)

I wholeheartedly agree with the bold part. And I also agree in general with what you are saying, but I don't think the rustle in the leaves with the guy on watch is a good example. If the DM broadcasts a likely imminent attack I don't find much suspense in pretending not to suspect anything: either way the players are "in suspense" waiting to find out what is about to attack them; the only difference is whether or not they are mechanically prepared.

I suppose that a DM who made a habit of dropping these kinds of hints...again with lots and lots of false positives, and a mechanical cost to reacting...could achieve some level of suspense.

EDIT: Or, if the character reacted to the rustling by venturing off into the woods without waking everybody else up it could be wonderfully suspenseful, which would be a good example of the part I bolded. But you'd need a special kind of players, and know that as DM, for it to work. Most players I've encountered would (unfortunately) do the mechanically optimal thing.

So maybe I'm generalizing a little too much, and with the right chemistry the simple play-acting sort of roleplaying can lead to immersive roleplaying. (Did I just break a forum rule by agreeing to temper my position? Should I stay away from any conductive metal?)

 

[Imaculata]

EDIT: Or, if the character reacted to the rustling by venturing off into the woods without waking everybody else up it could be wonderfully suspenseful, which would be a good example of the part I bolded. But you'd need a special kind of players, and know that as DM, for it to work. Most players I've encountered would (unfortunately) do the mechanically optimal thing.

You are probably correct. But I suppose that's why we're all here on these forums. To discuss things, hear different opinions, and maybe become better DM's and/or players in the process.

A lot of this relies of course on both the type of DM and the player. You need a player that is adventurous enough to go for what creates suspense in the narrative, and you need a DM who knows how to play with the expectations of his players to establish that suspense.

So maybe I'm generalizing a little too much, and with the right chemistry the simple play-acting sort of roleplaying can lead to immersive roleplaying. (Did I just break a forum rule by agreeing to temper my position? Should I stay away from any conductive metal?)

Haha, I think you just did.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, here's a scenario to consider. I posted this a year or two ago and some people went postal.

In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped. I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight. If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC (maybe 10) you tell the player that they can tell they are being or have been lured into a trap. Then you ask them what they do.

If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then no matter what they do they end up in the trap.

Note that I haven't actually done this, and I'm not sure I would...I'm just theorizing. But what I like about this is that it doesn't dictate thoughts/actions to the player: you are allowed to say/do/think whatever you want. But the trap is wherever you go if you fail, and it's someplace you don't go if you succeed.

Thoughts?

 

[Imaculata]

Ok, here's a scenario to consider. I posted this a year or two ago and some people went postal.

In a fight, the enemy...a manipulative, trickster type...tries to lure a PC into a square that is trapped. I proposed that you secretly roll for the bad guy's Deception, then allow the player to roll Insight. If the Insight roll beats a fixed DC (maybe 10) you tell the player that they can tell they are being or have been lured into a trap. Then you ask them what they do.

Ooooh, I remember this example clearly. That discussion went on for several decades I think.

If their Insight roll did not beat the Deception roll, then no matter what they do they end up in the trap.

Note that I haven't actually done this, and I'm not sure I would...I'm just theorizing. But what I like about this is that it doesn't dictate thoughts/actions to the player: you are allowed to say/do/think whatever you want. But the trap is wherever you go if you fail, and it's someplace you don't go if you succeed.

Thoughts?

I think this is a fair way to rule the situation. Some may argue that this is a case of a quantum-trapdoor, but I've never had any issue with moving the unknown to where its needed for the sake of the story.

I think your wording here is important though: "then allow the player to roll Insight"

So if I understand this correctly, rolling Insight is optional here, and requires player input first, otherwise the player makes no roll, and the enemy succeeds at their deception automatically.

So in what ways could this scenario play out?

Lets assume the player is distrusting of the enemy, and says: "I don't trust this hag for a second, this is probably a trap. I look for a trapdoor!"

In this case the player would have to roll Perception instead of Insight, to notice the trapdoor. Because its the action that the player declares, that informs the ruling of the DM.

If on the other hand the player says: "Do I get the feeling that she's trying to lure me into a trap?"

I would let the player make an Insight check to detect the deception.

Now if the player fails either of these checks, the DM could tell the player that despite their best efforts, the enemy played them like a fiddle, and got them exactly where she wanted them to go. She suddenly pulls a lever, and a trapdoor opens underneath the player's feet.