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

 

[Ovinomancer]

FATE is not a "niche" game. Classic Traveller is not a "niche" game. Call of Cthulhu is not a "niche" game.

As I said, this is not a thread about D&D. It's a thread about the relationship between social resolution mechanics and player agency. If you won't talk or think about any mechanics but 3E's very poor Diplomacy mechanics, then you're not going to learn much about the thread topic!

To wit:

And what make you think that is a permissible action declaration in a game which features social resolution mechanics? By your own account you don't play such games; I believe you've never read any of the rules for such a game; so what are you basing your conjecture on?

Again, how do you know? What experiences of the systems in question are you basing this on?

Dude, D&D is a niche game. FATE has a fraction of the market D&D has. Even when talking only in the realm of D&D, FATE's still pretty niche by size and concept. This isn't a bad thing, and I agree [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s dismissal because of nicheness is unwarranted, but you should recognize that the actual status of these things is pretty niche, even in the hobby.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just a sidebar question: Is it normal to have such long responses? There are lots of them from different posters but quite often there are line by rebuttals of up to 20 different points. This makes them quite hard to follow and makes it seem less of a conversation as much as a court battle. There is no particular person but is seems quite common. After all isn’t brevity the soul of wit.

"Fisking" is a semi-popular way to dismantle an opposing argument rather than present your own. It's a rhetorical trick, and usually goes alongside the 'gish gallop' where you throw so many different small roadblocks up to an differing viewpoint that the only way to coherent respond is point by point. This drags conversation down into places where rhetorical tricks rule rather than actual points or arguments (the good kind, not the yelling kind).

And I'm as guilty as the next for being drug down.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Heck, in some games (most D&D eds, for instance), you can /follow/ play procedures and abridge agency. Not ignore them, use them, arguably even as intended.

Not anymore than to presume that a technique some rule in some game is designed to prevent is a bad technique in some other game...

DMs have been DMing for 40 years. There's a vast pool of experience & knowledge out there. Techniques like 'illusionism' get negatively-connoted labels like that precisely because someone is irate that so many DMs have been using them for so long, and yet D&D remains stubbornly dominant in the hobby.

I've done a lot of DMing, and it's certainly been my experience. It felt more like fun than work, for the most part, though.

It's a non-magical ability, based on experience, applied to one table of gamers, in the moment. Seems like they'd have a better shot at it than a game designer trying to make the same kind of judgement for everyone who might ever play his game.

You might want to do more to establish that premise. Do you consider it an axiom or something?

Rather you're engaged in the circular reasoning of assuming the conclusion in your premise. A technique is bad because it's bad, so it's bad.

It's a powerful tool, you can mess things up with a powerful tool. That means 'be careful with it.' Not 'never use it.'

So, convert's zeal, then. OK.IMX, it was often because of Illusionism being used to make the game good in spite of disruptive players or horrifically bad mechanics or the like, too. There's a lot goes into a good game, and a lot that can make a game go bad...
...if you're insistent that illusionism is innately evil, perhaps we can agree it's a necessary evil - more necessary the further the system in question strays from perfection? ...nah, you've already dismissed that agree-to-disagree option....

But I don't see it as innately evil, in the first place. It's a technique, you can use it to support a better play experience, or to be a giant douche to your players.

They're the ones that are going to have the greatest impact on the quality of the game, so he better strive to make them so.

You're saying it's impossible to tell if your players are having a good experience or not?

Couldn't quantify it, of course. But, between personal experience, hearsay, and the tremendous growth RPGs have pointedly not experienced over the decades, I'd speculate a truly horrendous amount. Some of it from misusing illusionism and other such techniques, some of it from not using 'em, some of it from D&D being the de-facto entry point for most folks...

You don't say? It's sorta the gravity of the forums, really. Nothing much stands against it for long.

Nope. They were often moments that wouldn't have happened at all had I not done so earlier, though.

Yep. Immersion is this freakish, murky, subjective thing: you can't design it into a game, you can't lead a player to it nor make him drink it - but, sometimes, you can avoid him going off about it being 'shattered' with a little judicious application of illusionism.

Because they're different games. Different games, different tools, different expectations from the players. We've both clearly had experiences on both sides of this little game-theory-manufactured divide, so I don't see the contradiction.

I'll happily put up a DMs screen and use illusionism to the hilt to run a good 5e game. I'm equally happy to take it down and have everything in the open and above board, in a system & with a group where I find that works better.

5e and classic editions mainly, yes, benefit greatly from the technique labeled 'illusionism,' which I wouldn't say is identical with limiting player agency - often it preserves the sense (illusion, I guess) of having agency, for that matter.

The ability to detect the lie is based on the skill of the liar and perspicacity of the one being lied to. If that's modeled by a die roll in a given system, yeah, it depends on the result of that die roll. That can make rolling the die in front of the player a problem, because it will create the impression his thoughts/judgements or actions are being dictated or coerced in some way. Thus, take it behind the screen, so...

That should be the experience the player takes away from the table, yes.

Sorry, Tony, but I call bollocks on the ideas you've put forth. You've assumed that restricting player agency is a good and results in good games, but you've got nothing to show that this is true -- you can't link restricting player agency to good outcomes. All you've done is handwave in that DM's have special insight and just know, or that ridiculous piece of nonsense above where you try to link Illusionism to D&D's popularity in some kind of causal way. Rubbish, badly thought out, poorly constructed, built in fallacies, rubbish.

If you decide to have some decent arguments at some point, hit me up. But, if you're going to stick to "DM Knows Best" I think we're done with any productive conversation on this topic at this point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You've assumed that restricting player agency is a good

No, you've assumed it's innately bad, and offered no support for that assumption.

I've characterized it as a technique, and a powerful one. It can be used to produce desirable or undesirable results, depending on the skill and inclination of the DM employing it.

and results in good games, but you've got nothing to show that this is true

I'm sorry you choose to ignore decades of D&D's history.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, you've assumed it's innately bad, and offered no support for that assumption.

I've characterized it as a technique, and a powerful one. It can be used to produce desirable or undesirable results, depending on the skill and inclination of the DM employing it.

I'm sorry you choose to ignore decades of D&D's history.

Tony, you're being facetious. I was very clear that player agency is the only thing players get to bring to the table. They're one thing is choosing what their characters do and how they spend their character resources. Abridging that, especially for the sole purpose of maintaining the DM's vision of what should happen instead of what the player wants to happen is clearly removing the one thing the players get to do. The reason for doing it makes it clear that the only thing at stake here is the DM's ego, not any idea that the player will be happier being told what moves to make rather than getting to play their character. It also breaks a number of the guidelines in the rules about the roles of the players vs the role of the DM.

As for the history of the game, you, sir, should be embarrassed to even try to make that claim. Again, how many threads are there about horrible railroad games? Your argument defends those as good games that made D&D popular alongside the myth that the good DMs can do good with the same technique. You've defending blatant bad gaming with your argument. You're ignoring that with your rose colored glasses and claims of DM ubermensch that are what made D&D great. Clearly, D&D survives in spite of railroading and bad DMs reading their campaigns to their tables, not because of it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was very clear that player agency is the only thing players get to bring to the table.

So, no creativity, no interest, no imagination, no character portrayal?
Just choosing actions that must have a meaningful impact that they're aware of up-front and can't ever be over-ridden nor obfuscated?

They're one thing is choosing what their characters do and how they spend their character resources.

Illusionism doesn't take either of those choices away. In fact, it can create the experience of making more, more difficult/interesting/risky, such decisions, for the player. As the name suggests, some of those experiences may be 'illusionary,' but that doesn't make them any less real than the others, which are still imaginary decisions for imaginary characters in an imaginary world.

Abridging that, is clearly removing the one thing the players get to do.

Obviously, removing it entirely would render the whole exercise pointless, but illusionism isn't an all-in, only way to run a campaign from beginning to end, it's a technique that can be used as much or as little as the DM judges helpful. Abridging is not annihilating.

As for the history of the game, you, sir, should be embarrassed to even try to make that claim. Again, how many threads are there about horrible railroad games?

Heh. Like I said, a technique/tool that can be used for good or ill.

Clearly, D&D survives in spite of railroading and bad DMs reading their campaigns to their tables, not because of it.

D&D survives, and outshines all other RPGs in the market, in spite of a lot of things those other RPGs do in much more evolved ways - which, I'm afraid, is what motivates a lot of the animus towards it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, no creativity, no interest, no imagination, no character portrayal?
Just choosing actions that must have a meaningful impact that they're aware of up-front and can't ever be over-ridden nor obfuscated? Illusionism doesn't take either of those choices away. In fact, it can create the experience of making more, more difficult/interesting/risky, such decisions, for the player. As the name suggests, some of those experiences may be 'illusionary,' but that doesn't make them any less real than the others, which are still imaginary decisions for imaginary characters in an imaginary world.
Obviously, removing it entirely would render the whole exercise pointless, but illusionism isn't an all-in, only way to run a campaign from beginning to end, it's a technique that can be used as much or as little as the DM judges helpful. Abridging is not annihilating. Heh. Like I said, a technique/tool that can be used for good or ill. D&D survives, and outshines all other RPGs in the market, in spite of a lot of things those other RPGs do in much more evolved ways - which, I'm afraid, is what motivates a lot of the animus towards it.

Aaaand back to the fisking and the galloping. Tell you what, I'm only going to respond to the first quote response, so you pick what you want me to respond to by making sure you get it up front. To that end:

So, no creativity, no interest, no imagination, no character portrayal?
Just choosing actions that must have a meaningful impact that they're aware of up-front and can't ever be over-ridden nor obfuscated?

How do you propose that a player display creativity, interest, imagination, or character if not by having the power to choose how that character responds and acts? If the DM is telling me what my character thinks, and I roleplay that, what did I bring to the table besides the performance? Certainly I'm not engaged in my creativity, or my interest, or my imagination, or my idea of portrayal, no. Instead, I'm the actor and you've handed me both the script and provided the direction -- I'm only a tool in your play.

Meaningful impact is being misused here. Meaningful doesn't mean that the full ramifications of consequence of the action is known or immediate, nor does it mean that this action must be pivotal. It means that each action should have weight -- that it represents what the player wants, and isn't an empty performance at the direction of someone else using the approved script. A meaningful action can be as simple as eating breakfast, if that is important to the player as a feature of his character. Meaningful means that it means something to the player, not that it is world-shaking. The choice to go right or left at a fork can be meaningful, if the consequences differ. Granted, that's of small meaning, but trying to make it seem like I'm arguing that every player action declaration be of utmost and apparent importance is badly mistating my position.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Aaaand back to the fisking and the galloping. Tell you what, I'm only going to respond to the first quote response, so you pick what you want me to respond to by making sure you get it up front.

Don't even know what that is, nor am I curious to find out.

How do you propose that a player display creativity, interest, imagination, or character if not by having the power to choose how that character responds and acts?

I'm not.

If the DM is telling me what my character thinks, and I roleplay that, what did I bring to the table besides the performance?

Point is, even in that extreme case, performance is not /nothing/.

Certainly I'm not engaged in my creativity, or my interest, or my imagination, or my idea of portrayal, no. Instead, I'm the actor and you've handed me both the script and provided the direction.

Actors engage their creativity, interest & imagination, and put their own idea of a portrayal into it, even when given lines and direction.

Meaningful impact is being misused here. ... The choice to go right or left at a fork can be meaningful, if the consequences differ. Granted, that's of small meaning, but trying to make it seem like I'm arguing that every player action declaration be of utmost and apparent importance is badly mistating my position.

There is no difference, in the player experience delivered, between making a choice like that, and getting a result, and making a choice like that, and getting the exact same result.

You can argue that in the first case, it was 'illusionism' because the DM decided the result, and applied it regardless of the choice, while in the second case it's agency, because any other choice would have led to a different result. Or the other way around, because you can't tell, from the player's side of the screen, which is going on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Don't even know what that is, nor am I curious to find out.

Okay.

 

[5ekyu]

Actually, I think the only people in this thread making that particular proposal are those who are against it!
[MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] have proposed using the Ideals/Bond/Flaws/Inspiration mechanic in various ways - perhaps awarding Inspiration for responsing to a persuasive NPC; or having NPC requests, in appropriate circumstances, engage with PC Ideals/Bonds Flaws, thereby generating an appropriate pressure on the player to respond.

I have pointed out how other functional social mechanics operate, and none of them involves the GM deciding how the PC is to react.

One of the core examples thru this thread has bern does the duke convince your character to take the mission". If you say you have not sern anyone here who was for social mechanics workong on pcs who was also for that being possible, i am not gonna go back and ferret them out for you.

Another more recent part of the pro was tired so you are grumpy, iirc.

If you are trying to parse reaction so that you mean "action you now take" as opposed to "are convinced" then not worth continuing, esp given the bad roleplaying hamner down.