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]

The argument in question seems less that the roll/check tells that the player what their character thinks, but instead that the check places narrative restrictions on how the player can interpret/roleplay what the character can think.

Can you provide an example of this? Because this really seems like a semantic rewriting to avoid the conclusion.

 

[Hussar]

Well, then, how many checks do you think it should take before the GM can tell the layer what their character thinks?

Just to answer a question with a question, how many checks do you think it should take before the GM can kill a PC?

To me, the answer is, it depends. It's going to depend on a lot of factors. By and large though, we frown these days on a single check killing a PC, despite that being pretty common once upon a time. In combat, it's going to take a LOT of checks for that kobold to kill that 10th level barbarian, but, a whole lot fewer checks for that elder wyrm red dragon to do the same thing.

So, other than, "Very, very likely more than one", I don't think you can come up with a one size fits all answer to that question. What are the stakes? Obviously a higher stake situation should probably require more checks. If someone's trying to convince Captain America to side with Red Skull, that's going to take a heck of a lot of checks. OTOH, trying to convince Cap to get a Facebook account probably isn't that much of a challenge.

Telling the player that he enjoyed the music because the NPC bard scored high enough on the DC is an example of a single check I suppose. That one's right there in the rules. Sorry, but the English teacher in me rejects your rather contorted interpretation of the language. It's pretty clear what the skill says. Conversely, trying to persuade your character to take up this challenge as opposed to continuing on your merry way (a la the earlier example of the horse people) would likely require multiple checks, probably some sort of first past the post with each side making arguments and counter arguments and then opposed checks.

 

[Hussar]

No, ones the consequence of combat, the other is the consequence of a petulant DM trying to force his preferred outcome on the players. Different.

Nice. Because only petulant DM's would ever do this. Careful, your biases are showing.

Never minding the vast number of games out there where you can absolutely do this, not only can you do it, but you, as the GM/DM are EXPECTED to do it. Good grief, could you imagine trying to run Call of Cthulhu without sanity rules? Or a Fate game where your DM can never, ever use your Aspects.

Again, I'm absolutely baffled at the push back here. There's a host of games out there that do this and there's certainly no need to characterize all the GM's of those games as "petulant".

 

[Aldarc]

Can you provide an example of this? Because this really seems like a semantic rewriting to avoid the conclusion.

The bold may be the most cogent summary of this entire thread's discourse.

I would say that checks, in general, are less about particulars and more about establishing restrictions on the possible interpretation of dice resolution results within the in-game narrative. And here is a good example of that in action:

Firstly, there's using Insight as a "truth check." A success would mean I would reveal to the players if the NPC was lying or telling the truth. A failure would would mean I tell the players they can't tell one way or the other.

In this case, the player's thoughts are essentially restricted by the dice results. If they succeed, they have no choice but to know that the NPC is lying or telling the truth. If they fail, then their thoughts are restricted to the realm of "doubt," because they failed to gain certainty. Likewise, a Lore/Knowledge check basically curtails the thoughts of the PC such that their thoughts may successfully or fail to recall information. A character's thoughts in the narrative are inherently restricted through the success and/or failure of the check.

And sometimes checks are not always needed, as a GM may declare that a PC simply knows something (or ineligible to roll), though the player has no actual agency in knowing or not knowing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, ones the consequence of combat, the other is the consequence of a petulant DM trying to force his preferred outcome on the players. Different.

this really seems like a semantic rewriting to avoid the conclusion.

Both are consequences of the resolution mechanics going against the player, one in the wargaming-heritage 'combat pillar,' one in the more recently elucidated interaction pillar.
A petulant DM could kill off your character in combat, or slap a Geas on him, or narrate failure in any given social or interaction challenge in a particularly vindictive way, sure, but it doesn't change the nature of the resolution mechanics, themselves, nor make the results of the resolution in some way 'not a consequence' of it going against you.

 

[billd91]

I would say that checks, in general, are less about particulars and more about establishing restrictions on the possible interpretation of dice resolution results within the in-game narrative. And here is a good example of that in action:
In this case, the player's thoughts are essentially restricted by the dice results. If they succeed, they have no choice but to know that the NPC is lying or telling the truth. If they fail, then their thoughts are restricted to the realm of "doubt," because they failed to gain certainty. Likewise, a Lore/Knowledge check basically curtails the thoughts of the PC such that their thoughts may successfully or fail to recall information. A character's thoughts in the narrative are inherently restricted through the success and/or failure of the check.

And sometimes checks are not always needed, as a GM may declare that a PC simply knows something (or ineligible to roll), though the player has no actual agency in knowing or not knowing.

But none of those "constraints of thought" actually tell the PC how they feel about the information they've received. None of them constrain what they must do. And those issues are, as I see them, fundamentally different from being able to spot a tell when being bluffed or being able to recall a tidbit of information.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nice. Because only petulant DM's would ever do this. Careful, your biases are showing.

Why would you think I wasn't being careful or that I wanted to not show my biases?

Never minding the vast number of games out there where you can absolutely do this, not only can you do it, but you, as the GM/DM are EXPECTED to do it. Good grief, could you imagine trying to run Call of Cthulhu without sanity rules? Or a Fate game where your DM can never, ever use your Aspects.

Again, I'm absolutely baffled at the push back here. There's a host of games out there that do this and there's certainly no need to characterize all the GM's of those games as "petulant".

The "but thers anther game out there where this might happen" argument is lazy. Especially when you misrepresent the ones you pick. Sanity effects are a consequence of player declared actions, not things the NPCs roll against the PCs to force them to do things. Aspect use in FATE can be negated by the player if they don't agree. Both are explicitly staked by the players as part of playing the gane. Three things being discussed in this thread are the use of skills by NPCs to make PCs do things that the players did not stake. If you have the players stake the outcomes, then you aren't what I'm talking about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Both are consequences of the resolution mechanics going against the player, one in the wargaming-heritage 'combat pillar,' one in the more recently elucidated interaction pillar.
A petulant DM could kill off your character in combat, or slap a Geas on him, or narrate failure in any given social or interaction challenge in a particularly vindictive way, sure, but it doesn't change the nature of the resolution mechanics, themselves, nor make the results of the resolution in some way 'not a consequence' of it going against you.

No, they're not, because when the player snares in combat, PC death is staked as part of that decision. I The other hand, players don't stake believing the Prince on the outcome of the Prince's persuasion check. If you have an is situation where the players have staked this, then, okay, all good.

The real crux of my argument is based upon what the players know are the stakes. Meeting an NPC doesn't usually involve staking that you will believe the NPC and agree with them if they roll a high enough skill check. Getting into combat does stake PC death (or not, depending on the system and for a system that doesn't stake PC death in combat, our would be a bad play to kill a PC). If you're handling social engagements by seeing explicit stakes on NPC rolls and the players have opt into that stake setting, all goid, agency is not infringed. If the DM is unilaterally seeing stakes and conducting the resolution, agency is being needlessly infringed.

I've yet to see a concrete example of where agency being infringed led to a better outcome than not infringing. You've claimed this is so, but not shown your work.

And, again, listing all the ways that a GM could infringe agency is not an argument for why they should.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, they're not, because when the player snares in combat, PC death is staked as part of that decision. I The other hand, players don't stake believing the Prince on the outcome of the Prince's persuasion check. If you have an is situation where the players have staked this, then, okay, all good.

Again, an ambush or an assassination attempt can force the PCs into combat without players acceding to said life & death stakes. But, no, I don't think it makes much sense to assume PCs entering into a meeting with a prospective patron without the idea that they might go on a mission being on the table...
... I mean, a comparatively important noble asks for a meeting with a bunch of adventurers, what does anyone think the point of such a meeting might be? "I want your opinion on my new drapes?"

The example where conforming to the result of a social resolution becomes problematic is more than a little forced, really.

I've yet to see a concrete example of where agency being infringed led to a better outcome than not infringing.

An unverifiable anecdote on the internet will convince you? That'd be a first.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, an ambush or an assassination attempt can force the PCs into combat without players acceding to said life & death stakes. But, no, I don't think it makes much sense to assume PCs entering into a meeting with a prospective patron without the idea that they might go on a mission being on the table...
... I mean, a comparatively important noble asks for a meeting with a bunch of adventurers, what does anyone think the point of such a meeting might be? "I want your opinion on my new drapes?"

The example where conforming to the result of a social resolution becomes problematic is more than a little forced, really.

And I'd argue that ambushes sprung without warning that kill characters are poor play.

If the players are aware that attending the conference stakes their characters choice in what to believe, sir, fine, so long as they can choose to not attend. But forcing acceptance that the DM will tell you what you're character thinks because they show up at a conference is pretty weak.

Seriously, with all the levers the GM has to encourage or hook players, why the strong defense for the most lazy route of usurping player agency? I don't do this and I have no problems hooking players. I actually just pay attention to what my players tell me and go with that.