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

 

[iserith]

I suspect some, out of an unwillingness to admit that somebody else could say something intelligent...or possibly because doing so might lend credibility to something else that other person once said...will either:
a) Say this is obvious and is the way the game has been played forever
b) Will contrive some edge-case scenario to try to illustrate why this won't work.

Or both.

Sure, I've seen all those arguments before. I already know how to defeat them. Bring it on.

My reaction to "goal and approach" is that, yes, I do try to play that way. And yet I still find it useful to formalize it (sort of like "describe, then say 'what do you do?'") as a way of reinforcing the behavior.

I try to explain it to players as both a right and a responsibility. The players have a right to agency in the game, the right to play their character without the DM playing it for them. But that comes with a responsibility to be explicit about what they want to do and how they set about doing it.

I also put it in terms of good use of time. If they aren't explicit enough, I have to stop the game and ask them to clarify or add to what they are saying so I don't have to assume what they're doing. If they do their part up front, I don't have to assume (and possibly end up assuming wrong which wastes more time) or ask questions to get at their goal or approach.

I further tell them that I already control two-thirds of the conversation of the game (Steps 1 and 3). I don't want to infringe upon the one-third that they have. Players understand this in my experience and step up, which means fewer questions, fewer disputes, more meaningful decisions, more action, more progress per session.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On a side note, I especially hate "you think he's lying". Humans are ok at assessing general trustworthiness in strangers but terrible at detecting specific lies, and untold damage has been wrought by people...especially police...who believe they are good at the latter and therefore have too much confidence in their guesses.

OK. I suppose, in that case, "you think he's lying" is better than "he's clearly lying, and the truth is ________," but I still think that offering the conclusion based on the character's ability is more functional than inventing obscure clues for the player on a success, and counting on his ability to draw the conclusion you meant to telegraph in those clues.

If you are really going to tell a player what his/her character thinks, then in this case you may as well flip a coin.

So, set the DC so they need a natural 11 to succeed, then?

No, I get where it came from, I just don't really understand the answer. How is this different from pretty bog standard play? Player says, "I want to do X", DM assesses difficulty and player rolls success or failure and the DM narrates. What am I missing?

It struck me as more formalized.

5e D&D says "player declares action, DM determines success/failure/calls for a roll, DM narrates results." It's adding parameters to 'declares action' - you don't just declare an action, you state a goal and describe how you intend the character to accomplish it. That puts it closer to setting stakes - because the goal is what you're after, and the approach implies risks the character is willing to take to accomplish it.

In the wild, action declarations can be just a goal - "I check for traps" "I search for a hidden compartment" - or just an approach - "I examine the idol closely, without touching it" "I tap the sides & bottom of the chest, compare the interior dimensions to the exterior, look for atypical signs of wear..." - when the player knows he needs to fill in both, the DM has a better idea what he's working with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Make different decisions, anyway. Afterall, someone could be telling the truth, but have the wrong information, himself, for instance. He could be lying, but you don't want to let on that you believe that. Thinking someone is being truthful is just that, not thinking he (or you) is necessarily infallible.

At least, if the possibility of 'false positives' exist. If the resolution of a roll results in knowing he's lying or not or "you're not sure." Then, actually, you're always sure, you can never get a mistaken impression that a liar is being truthful or mistake mere nervousness for lying or whatever.

Yes, it is. That's why I felt compelled to spell it out, because that's the important distinction, in my view. Not whether the details of a system that does model character abilities rather than resorting to substituting player abilities, might end up abridging player agency in some instances.

That happens a lot in these discussions "risk I'm willing to take" turns into "something I demand all the time."

That's why we have a battlemaster in 5e, calls for a fighter that could actually do stuff, even if it meant complexity, became calls for a 'complex fighter' for complexity's sake.

I'm blanking on the words you usually use, but objective and method? Players need to tell you what they're trying to accomplish, and how. That's a form of 'framing,' I think, and avoids some pitfalls.

I understand what you're saying, I think, I just can't follow how we're here talking about what I said. I just can't follow how you got to why Battlemasters exist in 5e from the Camps I presented. I mean, clearly, you have thoughts on the matter, but maybe it's a different topic?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I understand what you're saying, I think, I just can't follow how we're here talking about what I said. I just can't follow how you got to why Battlemasters exist in 5e from the Camps I presented. I mean, clearly, you have thoughts on the matter, but maybe it's a different topic?

Yeah, I just don't accept the camp you chose to put me in, it's nothing to do with the aspect of the issue that concerns me.

The Battlemaster was just an example of (designers, in that case) listening to only part of what's being asked for - the "what I'd be willing to put up with (complexity) to get what I want" and almost pointedly, NOT the "what I actually want" (a versatile, fighter that models genre archetypes & balances with casters at any day length) part, so we got the Battlemaster: a complex for the sake of complexity fighter that delivers none of that.

I don't want to tell players what their character thinks or does, but I'd be willing to put up with having to do that, some of the time, to avoid having resolutions based on the players' abilities, instead of the characters' abilities. So, I'm being treated as the 'opposing camp' who wants to dictate character thoughts and actions for it's own sake.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I just don't accept the camp you chose to put me in, it's nothing to do with the aspect of the issue that concerns me.

The Battlemaster was just an example of (designers, in that case) listening to only part of what's being asked for - the "what I'd be willing to put up with (complexity) to get what I want" and almost pointedly, NOT the "what I actually want" (a versatile, fighter that models genre archetypes & balances with casters at any day length) part, so we got the Battlemaster: a complex for the sake of complexity fighter that delivers none of that.

I don't want to tell players what their character thinks or does, but I'd be willing to put up with having to do that, some of the time, to avoid having resolutions based on the players' abilities, instead of the characters' abilities. So, I'm being treated as the 'opposing camp' who wants to dictate character thoughts and actions for it's own sake.

It could also be said that the supposed camp that wants "resolutions based on the players' abilities" don't necessarily want that. What we want is players to be explicit enough with their action declarations that the DM doesn't have to infringe upon their agency by assuming or establishing what the character thinks, says, or does. The resolution is still based, in part, on the character's abilities as the mechanics may demand. Even so, some player skill is always involved. That is unavoidable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I just don't accept the camp you chose to put me in, it's nothing to do with the aspect of the issue that concerns me.

The Battlemaster was just an example of (designers, in that case) listening to only part of what's being asked for - the "what I'd be willing to put up with (complexity) to get what I want" and almost pointedly, NOT the "what I actually want" (a versatile, fighter that models genre archetypes & balances with casters at any day length) part, so we got the Battlemaster: a complex for the sake of complexity fighter that delivers none of that.

I don't want to tell players what their character thinks or does, but I'd be willing to put up with having to do that, some of the time, to avoid having resolutions based on the players' abilities, instead of the characters' abilities. So, I'm being treated as the 'opposing camp' who wants to dictate character thoughts and actions for it's own sake.

I haven't seen anyone that says you shouldn't tell players what their characters think make that claim except [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], and he just flat out doesn't like social skills at all due to being in the camp that social skills belong in role-playing, not mechanics. I don't think he even reached the "do mechanics inform thinking" divide.

So, it would be fair to say that you don't think that mechanics should dictate PC thinking, but would rather than than the elimination of all mechanical informational checks? If so, cool, I grok, but, man, did you ever bury that lede!

 

[aramis erak]

The problem we're discussing occurs right after this. On one side, there's the camp (Camp 1) that believe that this information is just that - informational - and that the player has full authority to declare any actions for her PC that she wants. The "you think" statement is taken solely in an informative sense, a fact or bit of knowledge that they can use or ignore as they wish.

On the other side, there's the camp (Camp 2) that thinks this information is limiting on the player's ability to declare what their PC does. That the player is not free to violate this established fact and instead must or should adhere to it.

(There's also a third camp, which says that the information should strongly bias the player's declarations, but I'm not sure this really differs from Camp 1 or not, because the end point is that the player could still override that bias, they just should be do so judiciously or rarely.)

The third camp is "it limits your unpenalized actions" - key being "unpenalized"

Group 1 has no penalty.
Group 2 simply disallows
Group 3 allows violation at penalty.

I consider myself in group 3.

Why I take this stance

• Good RP requires accepting that there are limits imposed by the situation.
• The character is NOT the player, and the character is a piece in a game; that game includes Roleplaying as a fundamental concept and mode of play.
• The inclusion of mental stats means the mental abilities of the character are part of the game, not just the RP.
• Spells that affect minds are not limited to affecting NPC's
• Morale rules are not exclusive to NPCs, either.
• I tend toward the simulationist mode of thought

 

[aramis erak]

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] - I'm sorry, but, I'm not sure I get it. Although, props for entertainment value. How can the player state goals without asking the questions though? "I want to find out if there is a trap on the door" is a goal. So, stated, roll and narrate the result. That's pretty much standard method of play isn't it?

I'm not seeing your point, I'm sorry.

Bawlie is basically using the Burning Wheel approach.
State your desired outcome
State the method
Option: Roll dice here
Do the in-character narration/dialogue to match.
Alternate: Roll dice here, possibly with an extra for good narration

Player: I'm going to use Blather to occupy the guard so that Fred's character can slip in. "Hey, Joachim, Long time, no see! Hows life? I'm in town for a couple days, and would love to have dinner with you and the wife. Boy how strong that tea was, I'm going a mile a minute..."
GM: if you fail, he spots the entry and connects you to it, and we go to Fight. Ob 3
Dice clatter; success.
Player: As I continue on, Fred slips by.

It's clear from the Goal what the attempt is all about. The Method is how you're doing it in a mechanics sense; the narration is how you're doing it in a story sense.

 

[Lanefan]

The third camp is "it limits your unpenalized actions" - key being "unpenalized"

Group 1 has no penalty.
Group 2 simply disallows
Group 3 allows violation at penalty.

I consider myself in group 3.

Why I take this stance

• Good RP requires accepting that there are limits imposed by the situation.
• The character is NOT the player, and the character is a piece in a game; that game includes Roleplaying as a fundamental concept and mode of play.
• The inclusion of mental stats means the mental abilities of the character are part of the game, not just the RP.
• Spells that affect minds are not limited to affecting NPC's
• Morale rules are not exclusive to NPCs, either.
• I tend toward the simulationist mode of thought

All good. My only questions then become what does the 'penalty' consist of, and how (and by who) is it applied?

Morale rules are a sticky one - even back in 1e they divided them between being hard-and-fast for NPCs/henches/monsters but not applying to PCs at all. Me, when I've used them at all (infrequent) I've always just used them as a rough guideline rather than anything hard and fast, and mostly let the at-the-time situation be a bigger aspect of determining the NPCs' reactions*.

* - the only time this gets messy is when a printed module says an NPC will do X (without which the plot risks running aground) but the situation strongly suggests their doing Y instead - I'll sometimes resolve this by secretly giving the NPC a quick roll-under Int or Wis check; on failure it does less-optimal X and on success it does Y and the plot be damned.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, it would be fair to say that you don't think that mechanics should dictate PC thinking, but would rather that than the elimination of all mechanical informational checks? If so, cool, I grok, but, man, did you ever bury that lede!

Approximately, yeah, and, yes, I tend to drift with threads rather than drive them.

Many times 'what the PC thinks' or 'what the PC feels' is going to be a function of the PC's abilities, and have a significant, related game impact, so needs to be modeled on those abilities, not just arbitrarily decided by the Player, whether by good-conscious character-driven RP or CaW drive to win regardless, FWIW. So, not that mechanics shouldn't (even ideally) ever end up dictating a PC thought/feeling/action, but that it should be minimized, and that the modeling should be good enough that it won't often be at odds with the concept.

So if you want to play an amazingly brave heroic PC, you should be able to design the character such that he'll rarely or never fail a morale check or save vs fear or be intimidated or whatever. You shouldn't /need/ to fall back on the claim that it's 'wrong' for your character to be afraid, in order to protect that concept from the mechanics.