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]

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.

Yes. Like I said, maybe they are playing the wrong game.

We all know lots of examples of disruptive behavior that is 100% within the rules.

And I will point out that there is no rule that says a successful Persuasion check forces a target to agree to an action. I am implementing RAW. (If anything, the converse is the house rule.) So don't give me any "if you are creating your own rules you are encouraging the behavior" nonsense.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Yes, and I agree with all of this.

I will point out that a perfectly fine use of "portrayal" mechanics in combat is in PvP. I can't remember if I got this from @iserith or @Bawylie, but if one player attacks another player I ignore the dice rolls and just ask the target of the attack to narrate the outcome. If they counterattack, then the first player narrates the outcome. Etc. I used it once recently...with a troublesome player...and it resolved the situation. Some of the participants, who would rather have been fighting monsters, even voluntarily took damage.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Why would you assume there's no consequences? Let's assume you do spot in the King's face; sure, maybe you avoid being forced to agree with the DMNPC, but surely you aren't saying that there'd be no consequence for this?

Similarly for the negotiating Prince -- refusing the offer of a powerful figure should have many consequences, and I'd play that up. The stakes and consequences of a negotiation aren't that the PC might be forced to acceed to the demands of the DMNPC but should be set add part of the scene. Your focusing on the mechanical resolution as if ous the crux when is just a tool, and one that shouldn't be used to force player choices.

And note choices. Being hit in combat isn't a choice -- the PC is never offered the choice to be hit or not. But it has a consequence. So should a NPC pushing and agenda at the player. If the player chooses to not accept it, there may be consequences for this, even very bad ones, but one shouldn't be "I, as DM who built this NPC, have him overwhelming social souls, picked his agenda, framed this scene, and then forced this check, get to tell you what your character does." The DM already had lots of Asbury to bring pressure on players, they shouldnt also be able to abuse mechanics you take the one thing player have complete power over -- what choices they make in response.

If you're going to remove choice, have the decency to just narrate at your players instead of pretending that they actually have options.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Did I mention recently that D&D's alignment system sucks? It's not a system that supports (or helps with) the creation of realistic characters.

If you haven't personally, lately, someone else, somewhere, probably has, prettymuch every day for the last 40 years.

It is kinda terrible in that way. It also introduces good & evil (and law & chaos - go Moorcock!) into the cosmology as palpable forces, not just philosophical viewpoints. It's a potentially powerful concept that could be used to paint a very high-fantasy style of campaign. D&D has mostly used it on old-school gotchyas and 3.x's 'Team Alignment' mechanics, though. So still kinda terrible, I guess.

The issue is the reverse from the one you mention. In classic D&D it is fairly straightforward for any character of note to have Know Alignment cast on him-/herself to confirm his/her alignment; and there is a further argument that one knows one's alignment innately, in virtue of knowing an alignment language.

Which means that, in classic D&D, evil protagonists and antagonists know that they are evil. Which is weird.

It certainly feels weird to modern sensibilities, centuries after the Enlightenment. But it's not entirely out of place in the brands of fantasy that indulge in black & white morality.

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 think it's fair to say that in systems where a 'Persuasion' skill exists there'll be circumstances where it's not useful. Those circumstances probably shouldn't be limited to 'using the skill on a PC,' though.

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.

Sometimes it really is just players angling for advantage. The player who builds a 3.5 diplomancer wants skills to work per RAW, the one who dumps WIS/CHA thinks we should 'roleplay through' everything, instead.

(Cynical, I know. But, unlike evil people who think they're good, I at least know I'm cynical.)

And I will point out that there is no rule that says a successful Persuasion check forces a target to agree to an action. I am implementing RAW.

Which system are you talking about, exactly? (Because this is the general forum, so a lot of systems could be relevant, many of which have no Persuasion skill, at all.)

Besides, I've gotten the impression, this whole time, that you're arguing /against/ following systems (unless magic, natch) in the general arena of PC thoughts/feelings/decisions...?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Which system are you talking about, exactly? (Because this is the general forum, so a lot of systems could be relevant, many of which have no Persuasion skill, at all.)

Oops, yeah, I forgot that games exist other than 5e. I mean, I forgot we aren't in the 5e forum.

Besides, I've gotten the impression, this whole time, that you're arguing /against/ following systems (unless magic, natch) in the general arena of PC thoughts/feelings/decisions...?

Errr...no, not exactly?
1) I will argue that 5e does not explicitly authorize the DM to dictate thoughts/feelings/decisions, although it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it.
2) And I would probably personally tend to dislike systems that did explicitly authorize it. Or at least that aspect of the systems.

I haven't meant to convey that I think such rules should simply be ignored, in cases where they exist.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Agreed.

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.

Disagreed.

Provided they're consistent with it, and that they don't cpmplain about the consequences thus generated, in my eyes those are the best kind of roleplayers. They're doing what their character would do without regard for metagame considerations.

Of course any character who spits in the King's eye probably has a very short playable lifespan ahead, as its next destination will be either a long stay in the King's dungeon or a quick death provided by an overenthusiastic guard or the hangman's noose. But if the player's cool with this, no worries!

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

And if the character thus created has been consistent in its F-you attitude toward authority why should it change now?

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oops, yeah, I forgot that games exist other than 5e. I mean, I forgot we aren't in the 5e forum.

Yeah, I had to page up to the top & double-check before I asked.

Errr...no, not exactly?
1) I will argue that 5e does not explicitly authorize the DM to dictate thoughts/feelings/decisions, although it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it.

The DM is explicitly authorized to give out Inspiration, for one 5e instance, and, while Inspiration is an optional sub-system, the DM is also the one who decides which optional sib-systems to use. The 5e DM also narrates the results of checks, which is a tremendous amount of latitude to dictate just about everything, really - and not just with Persuasion checks. So the DM seems prettywell authorized - or "Empowered" as 5e would put it - though under no obligation...

2) And I would probably personally tend to dislike systems that did explicitly authorize it. Or at least that aspect of the systems.
I haven't meant to convey that I think such rules should simply be ignored, in cases where they exist.

Though simply ignoring a rule is also entirely on the table for DMs running 5e.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be fair, the mechanical impact of alignment was pretty extreme in the classic game, and almost taken to the level of parody with 3.x's "Team Alignment" mechanics (why yes, every alignment gets mechanically similar anti-the-diametrically-opposed-alignment spells and magic items, it's only fair). It was 4e which pendulum-swung away from that precipitously, both simplifying alignment and purging alignment-driven spells, items and other mechanics. Backsliding began even before Essentials and the MME, and 5e has backslid only a little further, so far (returning to the more complicated/grid-filled/arbitrary 9-alignment system), but it is part of the return swing.

"Just selfish or bad in some ways," would be that messy neutral-but-not-philosophically-TN, maybe with some 'evil tendencies' of the 9-alignment system (or simply 'Unalligned' in the 5-alignment system).

I don't see the installment of a 9 alignment system as backsliding, really. I see it as a middle ground between fully changing the system and keeping alignment as a mechanical expression in the game.

As for my general description of "selfish or bad in some ways", I think with a little more to go on, we could come up with an alignment that suited the character. I also think that one of the results of removing mechanical impact of alignment is that it makes each seem a little less absolute. Going solely off my game, it seems that my players are a little more open to the idea of a character taking an action that is counter to their alignment.

The only alignment restriction that's come up at all in our game is that a PC needs to be of Good alignment to wield the Sunsword. Beyond that, it seems to be more of a story related label.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see the installment of a 9 alignment system as backsliding, really

Maybe 'backsliding' is an unfairly easy thing to hang on a game that set out, explicitly, and continually re-affirmed throughout it's playtest, the goal if evoking the classic game.

But, it is certainly going back to the 9-alignment system, and some mechanical impact, from a simpler/more intuitive (CG, LE, CN, LN, & TN having each thrown some folks) one with less mechanical impact.

I see it as a middle ground between fully changing the system and keeping alignment as a mechanical expression in the game.

9 alignments is the middle ground between 9 alignments and no alignments? Wouldn't 4.5 be the mid-point. ;P

Seriously, though, it's fine to note that alignment has not been returned to nearly the invasive mechanical bugaboo it was in the classic game. Just don't kid anyone 5e 'reduced' that impact, anymore than it nerfed casters relative to the preceding edition.

5e is very much a compromise edition, so for any given horrendous D&Dism it's typically better than the worst offender, but that doesn't mean 5e, itself fixed the issue, just that it didn't restore it fully relative to the version that did.

I also think that one of the results of removing mechanical impact of alignment is that it makes each seem a little less absolute.

My observation, from when the mechanical impact of alignment was removed, 6 years before 5e hit the shelves, was that it made players more inclined to play 'unaligned' characters, as they were more open to a range of personality & motivation, since there was no benefit to playing the more prescriptive alignments. It also helped that the alignments were fewer and more intuituve, there was no confusion over seemingly (to brand-new players) 'contradictory' alignments like CG or LE, nor temptation to use CN as an excuse for disruptive behavior...

 

[Hussar]

Agreed.

Disagreed.

Provided they're consistent with it, and that they don't cpmplain about the consequences thus generated, in my eyes those are the best kind of roleplayers. They're doing what their character would do without regard for metagame considerations.

Of course any character who spits in the King's eye probably has a very short playable lifespan ahead, as its next destination will be either a long stay in the King's dungeon or a quick death provided by an overenthusiastic guard or the hangman's noose. But if the player's cool with this, no worries!

And if the character thus created has been consistent in its F-you attitude toward authority why should it change now?

Lanefan

But, hang on, a few pages ago, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that a DM using Geas spells to compel the players was a bad, railroading DM. But, killing the PC's for not getting with the program is ok? How is that not just as "railroading" as dropping Geas spells?