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

 

[pemerton]

If you think about it logically the only wierd thing is for someone to justify to themselves for example that killing one, two, a hundred people is actually a "good" act. You know they only eat the ugly babies so its all about making the world a more beautiful place.

Yet the world is full of such people, most of whom don't regard themselves as evil.

 

[pemerton]

Framing a character in a situation that the player may not have intentionally placed him or herself into is the heart of roleplaying. It forces the player to actually immerse themselves in a role that they aren't 100% sure of and have to react to a situation in a way that challenges the player's ability to portray that character.

I agree with the first sentence. The second I agree with less, because I'm more into "inhabitation" of the character than "portrayal" of the character.

But the first sentence is enough, I think to provide a rationale (not necessarily a knock-down argument) for social mechanics that can affect PCs. (What form that effect takes is a further thing. A lot of discussion in this thread seems to assume 3E-style mechanics, which I think are widely regarded as rather poor, rather than better mechanics from other systems.)

 

[Shasarak]

I disagree, obviously.

Framing a character in a situation that the player may not have intentionally placed him or herself into is the heart of roleplaying. It forces the player to actually immerse themselves in a role that they aren't 100% sure of and have to react to a situation in a way that challenges the player's ability to portray that character.

I dont know if forcing a Player to react unrealistically just because the DM has rolled high is the heart of roleplaying. It seems to me that choosing to spit in the Kings eye never mind the consequences is a better choice then just blindly following along just because the King has a +20 on his Diplomacy.

I mean, "country bumpkin just off the turnip wagon" is a pretty common background. Or that PC with a dumped Wis/Int score suddenly becomes Sherlock Holmes whenever someone talks them isn't terribly believable. I find it far more plausible that a character be influenced by the NPC when the mechanics call for it.

Maybe the DM should just stick to roleplaying his NPCs and leave the PC roleplaying to the Player. Or maybe a turnip farmer can be just as good at noticing stuff as a morphine addict?

 

[Shasarak]

Yet the world is full of such people, most of whom don't regard themselves as evil.

Yup, the real world is certainly a wierd place indeed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Rolling back to the idea of people not being able to be convinced of something, using a real world political issue in a certain country.

Sure, we can come up with all sorts of examples of someone not being able to convince someone else to do something regardless of how persuasive they are.

But, just because those exist doesn't mean that we have to insist that no PC can EVER be persuaded because of a persuasion check. Isn't that why we have a DM at the table?

I thought it was why we had players.

 

[Hussar]

I dont know if forcing a Player to react unrealistically just because the DM has rolled high is the heart of roleplaying. It seems to me that choosing to spit in the Kings eye never mind the consequences is a better choice then just blindly following along just because the King has a +20 on his Diplomacy.



Maybe the DM should just stick to roleplaying his NPCs and leave the PC roleplaying to the Player. Or maybe a turnip farmer can be just as good at noticing stuff as a morphine addict?

Hang on, who said anything about forcing a player to react unrealistically? That would be bad for everyone at the table.

But, yeah, the player choosing to spit in the King's eye because "F you, you can't tell me what to do!" is the absolute worst kind of role player. The disruptive player who retreats behind "Well, it's my character and that's what my character would do!" No thanks.

I truly believe that the mechanics should guide the player to playing the character they actually created, not just whatever they feel like playing.

 

[Aldarc]

I dont know if forcing a Player to react unrealistically just because the DM has rolled high is the heart of roleplaying. It seems to me that choosing to spit in the Kings eye never mind the consequences is a better choice then just blindly following along just because the King has a +20 on his Diplomacy.

Maybe the DM should just stick to roleplaying his NPCs and leave the PC roleplaying to the Player. Or maybe a turnip farmer can be just as good at noticing stuff as a morphine addict?

As opposed to the Player expectation that NPCs react unrealistically because the Player rolled high? Or the Player feeling that their character is persusasive as part of their character concept but fail to persuade the DM's concept of the NPC without the aid of dice resolution mechanics? Or as opposed to the Player forcing their character to act unrealistically out-of-character because the player does not want their character to be subject to the same governing norms, realities, and fallibilities that exist in the game as expressed by the mechanics? If I could get my character out of danger by simply declaring as a player that I am not persuaded, then I may as well declare that my character is constantly wearing an invisible invulnerable force field.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, just because those exist doesn't mean that we have to insist that no PC can EVER be persuaded because of a persuasion check. Isn't that why we have a DM at the table?

I thought it was why we had players.

Spot on. It's not that no PC will ever be persuaded, it's that such an outcome is solely up to the player's discretion. If a player refuses to ever make a choice that contributes narratively to the story more than mechanically to his character, maybe he is playing the wrong game?

 

[Aldarc]

Spot on. It's not that no PC will ever be persuaded, it's that such an outcome is solely up to the player's discretion. If a player refuses to ever make a choice that contributes narratively to the story more than mechanically to his character, maybe he is playing the wrong game?

Or maybe they are simply playing the same game approach that your are tacitly authorizing that uses player fiat as an opt-out for avoiding in-game consequences.

 

[pemerton]

If a player refuses to ever make a choice that contributes narratively to the story more than mechanically to his character, maybe he is playing the wrong game?

For me, this goes back to the "inhabitation" vs "portrayal" issue.

What you say would make sense on a "portrayal" conception of RPGing. But by the same token, a "portrayal" conception doesn't seem to need combat mechanics of the D&D sort either - the GM could roll the attack die, narrate the deftness and/or force of the NPC's bladework, and then the player would choose whether or not s/he thinks the character s/he is portraying could dodge or withstand that blow, or rather suffer its force.

But D&D mechanics don't work that way for combat, because they favour an "inhabitation" approach: the mechanics yield results that have implications for the player as a participant in the game (my game piece is being worn down) that mirror what is happening to the PC (I am being worn down).

One example where the D&D mechanics seem to have trouble in relation to the "inhabitation"/"portrayal" contrast is falling damage: on an inhabitation model, a high level PC knows that s/he can safely jump 50' straight down - and that's how I play my PCs and would expect players in my game to play theirs - whereas others want this to be approached on a portrayal approach, where the player portrays someone afraid of the possibility of death from such a fall even though the player knows that there is no risk of death.

I find the "portrayal" approach to falling damage rather insipid, and have the same view about that approach to social interaction: if I'm accepting the duke's proposal because that's how I feel I'm required to portray my PC, even though nothing in the actual situation as the game represents it to me is providing me with that signal, I find that a bit insipid. It's like I'm betraying my PC in pursuit of some impersonal goal of "appropriate portrayal". I prefer game mechanics that don't set up this sort of wedge between play expectation and game representation.

I'll cheerfully agree that it can be harder to do that for social conflict than physical conflict - but I don't think that means it can't be done. And I also want to make it clear that I'm not talking about the GM taking over the PC (ie turning the PC into a NPC). I'm talking about how I want the game to represent my PC to me, which then feeds into how I play my PC because I am "inhabiting" him/her. (And because we're mostly talking about situations in which the PC is not initially disposed to go along with the NPC's request, that representation most of the time should probably capture some idea of reluctance, or hesitation, or compromise, or being in two minds, etc.)

These representations the game makes to me might include penalties to, or even prohibition of or mandating of, certain actions (eg PCs in Classic Traveller who fail a morale check have extremely constrained action options); but they aren't the result of the GM taking over the PC, anymore than dropping to zero hp is. They're the result of the mechanical framework - and this is why a sound mechanical framework, which appropriately connects fictional situation, the place of the PC in that situation, and consequence, is fundamental.