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

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, and as I said in my first post, "Now some folks will want to obfuscate what 'think' means in this context and how it can be warped into all manner of clever (and not-so-clever) ways to try and push the player into having his or her character act accordingly."

If you're comfortable telling your players what their characters think, go for it. I choose not to for the reasons stated.

I guess I missed it somewhere: how would you phrase answers to an action like "can I tell if he's lying?" (let alone "do I think he's lying?" which I suspect, would earn a "IDK, do you?") or whatever, to both avoid telling the player what the PC thinking, and convey anything like useful information? I mean, objective: determine if the NPC is being truthful method: I pay careful attention to his body language, looking for any clues that might indicate deceit, perhaps.

How'd you narrate the resolution if you thought it was uncertain, and decided to roll..?


As a bonus: how would you determine & narrate a failure giving wrong information vs no information?

 

[billd91]

I guess I missed it somewhere: how would you phrase answers to an action like "can I tell if he's lying?" (let alone "do I think he's lying?" which I suspect, would earn a "IDK, do you?") or whatever, to both avoid telling the player what the PC thinking, and convey anything like useful information? I mean, objective: determine if the NPC is being truthful method: I pay careful attention to his body language, looking for any clues that might indicate deceit, perhaps.

How'd you narrate the resolution if you thought it was uncertain, and decided to roll..?


As a bonus: how would you determine & narrate a failure giving wrong information vs no information?

For a failure, when someone is bluffing/deception is better than the PC is sensing motives, how about "He gives off no indication of insincerity that you can detect." or "His sincerity seems genuine." The same works if the NPC isn't actually lying no matter what the PC rolls for insight/sense motive. It's still up to the player to believe or not believe what the NPC is telling his PC.

For a successful sense motive/insight better than the NPC's bluff/deception - "He's shifty on the topic, possibly lying or hiding something." The only real constraint here on a PC's mental state is that he's no longer capable of believing that the NPC is speaking the honest truth as he knows it. And that's a whole lot less than manipulating someone into going on a quest or taking a lot of control of the PC away from the player.

Ultimately, you just don't tell the PC how he feels about that information. Leave it up to the player to decide how their PC feels about whether or not the NPC seems sincere, hiding something, shifty, exaggerating, or outright lying.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For a failure, when someone is bluffing/deception is better than the PC is sensing motives, how about "He gives off no indication of insincerity that you can detect." or "His sincerity seems genuine." The same works if the NPC isn't actually lying no matter what the PC rolls for insight/sense motive. It's still up to the player to believe or not believe what the NPC is telling his PC.

For a successful sense motive/insight better than the NPC's bluff/deception - "He's shifty on the topic, possibly lying or hiding something." The only real constraint here on a PC's mental state is that he's no longer capable of believing that the NPC is speaking the honest truth as he knows it. And that's a whole lot less than manipulating someone into going on a quest or taking a lot of control of the PC away from the player.

So avoid using the words "you think..."

Reminds me of the 'you messages'/'I messages' thing. Don't say "you betrayed me!" say "I feel betrayed!" it's totally different...

Ultimately, you just don't tell the PC how he feels about that information. Leave it up to the player to decide how their PC feels about whether or not the NPC seems sincere, hiding something, shifty, exaggerating, or outright lying.

It's not like "you think he's lying" tells the PC how to feel about being lied to...

 

[iserith]

I guess I missed it somewhere: how would you phrase answers to an action like "can I tell if he's lying?" (let alone "do I think he's lying?" which I suspect, would earn a "IDK, do you?") or whatever, to both avoid telling the player what the PC thinking, and convey anything like useful information? I mean, objective: determine if the NPC is being truthful method: I pay careful attention to his body language, looking for any clues that might indicate deceit, perhaps.

How'd you narrate the resolution if you thought it was uncertain, and decided to roll..?

As a bonus: how would you determine & narrate a failure giving wrong information vs no information?

I think I'll opt out of giving any specific examples of how I would narrate it since I can only imagine, based on previous experience and on recent threads in this forum debating the meanings of various terms, that some might be inclined to say what I'm saying is me telling the player what the character thinks. I've seen people make arguments that even describing the environment is telling a player what his or her character thinks. It's a tedious discussion for which I don't have the time or patience.

I'll add that I think part of the issue with the way many DMs narrate this outcome comes from the player doing a poor job on being specific with his or her goal and approach, often just assuming what the character is actually doing, because all the player offers is a question (ugh) or a request to make a check. If a player, however, is clear on what his or her character is doing and trying to accomplish and what may or may not constitute a clue that indicates untruthfulness (for example), the DM can simply say whether that clue is noticed. Basically, get a reasonably specific action declaration from the player and the DM doesn't have to tell a player what his or her character thinks.

I would not give out wrong information on a failed check. You notice the clue or you don't just like you notice the secret door or you don't. Though in some situations, success at a cost or with a setback may be a reasonable result.

 

[Imaculata]

It's not like "you think he's lying" tells the PC how to feel about being lied to...

In my opinion, if you say "you think he's lying" to the player, then it removes all doubt and suspense. I find it more interesting to describe what the npc is doing, and leave the conclusion to the player. For example, I might say: "The npc seems to be keeping an eye on the door". Or: "The npc seems nervous", or: "The npc seems to be exchanging looks with someone else in the tavern".

This can then allow the player to ask further questions, to determine what is going on. Is the npc lying? Or preparing an ambush? Or is he being followed? Or is he giving secret signals to someone else in the tavern?

I don't think social checks should be an outright lie detector.

I would not give out wrong information on a failed check. You notice the clue or you don't just like you notice the secret door or you don't. Though in some situations, success at a cost or with a setback may be a reasonable result.

Depends on the check in my opinion. If an npc succeeds at their social check, they may seem perfectly sincere, when in fact they are lying.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I'll sometimes give out wrong (or irrelevant) information on a badly-failed check. In the check-if-he's-lying example, were I to use such, a really bad failure might narrate as they're sure he's telling the truth when he's in fact lying about point A, but they instead think he's lying about unrelated truthful point B.

Searching for traps gives a more concrete example: a really bad failure might lead to their "finding" a trap where there isn't one, or of a completely different type, while missing the one that's actually there.

 

[Imaculata]

Searching for traps gives a more concrete example: a really bad failure might lead to their "finding" a trap where there isn't one, or of a completely different type, while missing the one that's actually there.

When it comes to searching for traps, I would not give out false information. But a result of a failed trap may be:

-You find hints that a trap is nearby, but have no idea where it is exactly.
-You accidentally prime the trap while searching for it.
-You don't find the trap at all.
-You find only part of the trap, but miss a crucial detail that happens to be well hidden.

 

[iserith]

Depends on the check in my opinion. If an npc succeeds at their social check, they may seem perfectly sincere, when in fact they are lying.

In D&D 5e, I would only make such a check for the NPC as a contest in order to determine a DC for the PC's check. The NPC will already have made an effort to seem sincere despite lying before the player declares an action to try to have the character determine the NPC's truthfulness.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In my opinion, if you say "you think he's lying" to the player, then it removes all doubt and suspense.

Because the PC also thinks he's infallible?

I find it more interesting to describe what the npc is doing, and leave the conclusion to the player. For example, I might say: "The npc seems to be keeping an eye on the door". Or: "The npc seems nervous", or: "The npc seems to be exchanging looks with someone else in the tavern".

And that shifts it from the character's insight skill vs the NPC, to the player's metaphorical insight skill vs you...

...which is the bit that I don't like. I want people to be able to play characters quite different from themselves.

Depends on the check in my opinion. If an npc succeeds at their social check, they may seem perfectly sincere, when in fact they are lying.

And someone who's telling the exact truth could seem terribly nervous and keep glancing to the door as he wonders if he has any chance of escaping the psychotic murder hobos asking him questions...

In D&D 5e, I would only make such a check for the NPC as a contest in order to determine a DC for the PC's check. The NPC will already have made an effort to seem sincere despite lying before the player declares an action to try to have the character determine the NPC's truthfulness.

Or just set the DC to reflect that the NPC is a good liar, rather than 'risk' the NPC roll very high or low and give a strange DC like 7 or 24. Deciding there's uncertainty is one thing, 2d20's worth of uncertainty is another...

... but that's a different, 5e/d20, topic...

 

[iserith]

Or just set the DC to reflect that the NPC is a good liar, rather than 'risk' the NPC roll very high or low and give a strange DC like 7 or 24. Deciding there's uncertainty is one thing, 2d20's worth of uncertainty is another...

... but that's a different, 5e/d20, topic...

Yes, that would be fine in D&D 5e as well. It depends on whether the DM looks at the situation as being one in which the NPC is trying to prevent the PC from accomplishing a goal. If he or she does see it that way, then it's a contest rather than a flat DC.