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]

withhold only. Especially if the other character elements are unfilled in.

It's not so much old school as "skinner box"...

I don't allow evil PC's except when running AL (and then only the AL legal LE), and I'm not running AL these days...

I don't force them to act according to Alignment, but the out-of-alignment acts are not without consequence. If they choose to do so, they know the price.

Further, by disallowing certain ones openly, and up front, they have the option to walk away up front and not waste both their and my time.

I have never enjoyed playing with evil characters, or really with the kind of people who tend to play evil characters. (With a couple of notable exceptions over the years.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have never enjoyed playing with evil characters, or really with the kind of people who tend to play evil characters. (With a couple of notable exceptions over the years.)

In my experience, most people seem to think evil is either mustache twirling or orphanage burning or just confuse evil with being a jerk. This means most people's experience with evil characters is not just fun at all because everyone's just being a jerk.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In my experience, most people seem to think evil is either mustache twirling or orphanage burning or just confuse evil with being a jerk. This means most people's experience with evil characters is not just fun at all because everyone's just being a jerk.

Yes, exactly. Again, with a few notable exceptions.

But even in those cases I think I would have preferred simply to have heroes, rather than anti-heroes, in the group.

That's how I roll. (get it?)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I tend to find the occasional evil character in a group to be a nice change of pace. I also think it winds up helping the game because everyone has to really think about how it’s going to work.

That little bit where the DM/players think “why would this gnoll be with these adventurers?” is great. People are engaged and considering the stoey and the characters.

That said, yeah it’s easy for it to devolve if the players aren’t really up to it, or of the DM doesn’t know how to handle it. But there’s so many examples in ficton of the good guy working with the bad guy that I really don’t get why so many people are so opposed to it.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, exactly. Again, with a few notable exceptions.

But even in those cases I think I would have preferred simply to have heroes, rather than anti-heroes, in the group.

You see, this is what I don't get - the love for all things heroic and-or goodly. Heroes, IMO, get boring after a while; goody-two-shoes heroes even more so. Far more fun is to play a party of characters who collectively aren't really sure what they're out here for, of a variety of ethos (or alignments) who don't always get along, and to most of whom intentional heroism is just something to be waved at as it goes by in the distance.

Yeah, sure we might save the world now and then...but that's (usually) not the original reason why we're adventuring. Most of the time we're just out for the fun, mayhem, staggering riches, and entertainment that comes from the adventuring lifestyle; and failing that we're each of us out working on some long-range personal goal, progress toward which for the time being can be better achieved operating in a group than as an individual.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I've got nothing against PCs who are selfish or even vicious (within the limits of good taste). But there is something a bit weird about the D&D alignment system, because you know you're evil. The question of right conduct has already been answered (at the table, by the alignment rules; in the fiction, by the cosmos).

 

[Guest 6801328]

You see, this is what I don't get - the love for all things heroic and-or goodly. Heroes, IMO, get boring after a while; goody-two-shoes heroes even more so. Far more fun is to play a party of characters who collectively aren't really sure what they're out here for, of a variety of ethos (or alignments) who don't always get along, and to most of whom intentional heroism is just something to be waved at as it goes by in the distance.

Yeah, sure we might save the world now and then...but that's (usually) not the original reason why we're adventuring. Most of the time we're just out for the fun, mayhem, staggering riches, and entertainment that comes from the adventuring lifestyle; and failing that we're each of us out working on some long-range personal goal, progress toward which for the time being can be better achieved operating in a group than as an individual.

Definitely wandering off-topic (maybe for the best?) but there's a middle-ground between "saving the world" and being murderhobos. And honestly I'm tired of campaigns premised on a threat to the whole world. (WotC adventure paths being the prime example.)

I've tried playing characters with evil-ish concepts and backgrounds, but I always ending up wanting to save the villagers and stamp out evil anyway.

I just don't think it's fun to roleplay evil traits. I'm not even very good at chaotic.

Now, I don't mind playing a reluctant hero. Or a coward. I can do the guy who says he's just in it for the money. But neutral is about as far as I can push it before it just feels...disturbing...to want to roleplay being a bad person.

Maybe it's an "actor stance" vs. "experiential stance" (I just made that up) kind of thing. Yes, I can imagine it would be a blast to play the villain in a movie. But that's not what I'm doing when I RPG.

I've got nothing against PCs who are selfish or even vicious (within the limits of good taste). But there is something a bit weird about the D&D alignment system, because you know you're evil. The question of right conduct has already been answered (at the table, by the alignment rules; in the fiction, by the cosmos).

Yes, that, too. The bad guys in real life invariably think they're the good guys. And, except in cases of psychopathology, there's an argument that they are.

 

[Imaculata]

And yet those millions of individuals don't necessarily have superior willpower or wisdom. They might easily be persuaded of other things. The fact that they spent the morning sticking to their opinions doesn't make them any more likely to change their minds in the afternoon (perhaps the opposite, really.)

On the other hand, they may very well be annoyed and ornery after being assailed all day for their beliefs. I can imagine that whatever patience and congeniality they started the day off with is going to be less present. But that doesn't leave them more open to persuasion.

I think this is an excellent example. In some cases, neither npc's nor players will necessarily change their minds, no matter how high you roll on your diplomacy check.

I had a conservative bishop in my campaign, who didn't think highly of women, and he also really hated pirates. The players (who played pirates) tried their best to convince him that a good friend of theirs (a woman) should be the next ruler of the city. But there was no way they were going to change his mind, no matter how good they rolled. Nor was there any chance that the bishop was going to convince the PC's that he was even remotely right. The only real option they had, was to convince enough other people to put pressure on the bishop, in order to change his mind... or to pick someone else to be the new ruler.

As a DM I find these sort of social situations in D&D very interesting. Sometimes npc's are reasonable, and sometimes they are very unreasonable. It's not only about the dice rolls.

I extend the same leniency to my players, and how their characters react to social checks. When an npc is very convincing, that doesn't mean the PC's must change their opinion. But it does affect how I describe the scene to them. I may tell them that the npc sounds reasonable and honest, and that it sounds like he means every word of what he says. I may even describe how other npc's react to it in a positive way, and may even go as far as to describe how their character understands what the npc is trying to explain.

For example, there was a one-armed Countess in my campaign, who felt strongly that security along the coast was in the best interest of the region. Which is why she supported a strong military leader as the next ruler of the city. She rolled high on her diplomacy against the players, so I explained to them how their characters knew that the Countess was from a town that had suffered greatly under several pirate attacks. It was one of these attacks that had cost her her arm, as well as her father's life. And so this well known history gave extra power to her words and opinion. It even caused a silence to drop in the room, as many nobles turned their attention to her, and many agreed with her.

That is the power of a good social roll.

(Interesting side note: Apparently this scene made such an impression on my players, that they decided that they would try to capture the pirate that did this to her, and bring him before her, so that justice could be done to him. And justice was served very sweet.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've got nothing against PCs who are selfish or even vicious (within the limits of good taste). But there is something a bit weird about the D&D alignment system, because you know you're evil. The question of right conduct has already been answered (at the table, by the alignment rules; in the fiction, by the cosmos).

This was more true of past editions than of 5E. Now, in 5E there is very little mechanical impact of your alignment. Most of the spells and abilities from past editions that worked based on alignment are now keyed to creature type (fey, fiend, celestial, etc.). Alignment now is mostly just a summary of your general outlook.

So there is no reason for a Lawful Evil person to think of themselves as "evil". They can think of themselves as being in the right through any justification the player would like (the ends justify the means, only I can safely rule, etc.).

So it's a starting point for the player, but they can certainly examine it through play, and possibly shift things if their character's views change. Although I think this was always the case, it seems even easier in 5E.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Definitely wandering off-topic (maybe for the best?) but there's a middle-ground between "saving the world" and being murderhobos. And honestly I'm tired of campaigns premised on a threat to the whole world. (WotC adventure paths being the prime example.)

I've tried playing characters with evil-ish concepts and backgrounds, but I always ending up wanting to save the villagers and stamp out evil anyway.

I just don't think it's fun to roleplay evil traits. I'm not even very good at chaotic.

Now, I don't mind playing a reluctant hero. Or a coward. I can do the guy who says he's just in it for the money. But neutral is about as far as I can push it before it just feels...disturbing...to want to roleplay being a bad person.

Maybe it's an "actor stance" vs. "experiential stance" (I just made that up) kind of thing. Yes, I can imagine it would be a blast to play the villain in a movie. But that's not what I'm doing when I RPG.



Yes, that, too. The bad guys in real life invariably think they're the good guys. And, except in cases of psychopathology, there's an argument that they are.

I don't know if it's that hard. I think we have to stop thinking of an evil character as being this instrument of pure evil rather than just selfish or bad in some ways. Think of all the great fiction that's involved such characters and dealt with them in at least somewhat sympathetic ways....Sopranos and Breaking Bad come to mind.

I think Tony Soprano is undoubtedly a character we can classify as Evil for the purposes of an RPG. But that doesn't mean he does bad things indiscriminately, or without any remorse. Walter White is even less blatantly Evil, but still qualifies.

Just a couple that spring to mind that actually seem like they'd be interesting to run.

I think the only challenge that there really should be is to find a reason for the other PCs to be working with this person. They probably work best with like minded characters for a themed campaign, but if not, and they're to be teamed up with more heroic minded PCs, you can usually find a reason that makes it work.

Characters that we think of as "Pure Evil" or so far beyond normal reasoning that they seem so are better avoided. I can't see how one would play a character like Hannibal Lector, for instance, or why it would be fun, nor how it would work with other players. But there's no need to go so far into the Evil territory as that.