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]

I agree with this, and think I posted something along these lines way upthread.

But it assumes a mechanically mediated approach to play which is not uncontroversial! (As this thread shows.)

It also assumes a mechanically mediated approach to play that doesn't suck out loud when it comes to modeling that kind of archetype, which is possibly one of the least-warranted assumptions in the history of the hobby.

 

[Darth Solo]

"Player Agency", or, the players ability to control their own character, is proto-mythic. It influences the game but only as much as the player touches the GM's game.

There's how the dice affect the game, then there's how the players' actual RP affects the game. Rpgs have a few levels. To say to game stops or begins at a level could be inaccurate.

If you decide to play a game where a player (the GM) can negate or even control your decisions as a player and that irks you, do not play D&D RAW. Your group should agree the GM is not the final authority.

You can do that.

But the idea that the entire hobby might should change because you don't like Charm is silly. Change your table, not mine. I'm going to play D&D as intended, which is, as my group prefers.

I don't begrudge Storygamers how they want to play, even though D&D was never designed for them. They can make it their own. More power.

Just don't try to tell me how my group plays is wrong. Ever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"Player Agency", or, the players ability to control their own character, is proto-mythic. It influences the game but only as much as the player touches the GM's game.

There's how the dice affect the game, then there's how the players' actual RP affects the game. Rpgs have a few levels. To say to game stops or begins at a level could be inaccurate.

If you decide to play a game where a player (the GM) can negate or even control your decisions as a player and that irks you, do not play D&D RAW. Your group should agree the GM is not the final authority.

You can do that.

But the idea that the entire hobby might should change because you don't like Charm is silly. Change your table, not mine. I'm going to play D&D as intended, which is, as my group prefers.

I don't begrudge Storygamers how they want to play, even though D&D was never designed for them. They can make it their own. More power.

Just don't try to tell me how my group plays is wrong. Ever.

Who the heck are you responding to? Did somebody say that Charm spells used against PCs are badwrongfun? (If so I missed it.)

 

[Darth Solo]

Yeah.

The OP suggests that certain rpgs infringe on the player's ability to control their character. Re-read the OP. I did a few times and I've seen this argument before.

So. I posted here.

 

[Bawylie]

I was think ing much the same thing.

What counts as sufficient statement of the method is always an open question. For example, if the goal is "kill the orc" is it a sufficient statement of method to say "I enter melee with my sword?" Or does the player need to specify some particular swordfighting technique?

The similar issue arises with traps.

In the swordfighting case, if the player fails the check (so that the PC misses, gets skewered by the orc, etc) is the GM allowed to narrate "As you try to parry, you suddenly realise the orc has deftly feinted past your defence"? And, if so, is the player allowed to respond with a more intricate description of his/her PC's fighting style which explains how s/he would never fall for that feint?

In the trapfinding case, if the check is failed is the GM allowed to narrate "As you feel for tripwires, you accidently trigger a pressure plate?" If not, how is the GM meant to narrate failure? And is a player of a trapfinder meant to be able to narrate detailed trap-finding techniques? Does this feed back into swordfighting? (And what about magical skills, where no one can know what the relevant techniques might be?)

I have used the Burning Wheel approach for a long time (in Rolemaster, 4e, BW, Classic Traveller, Cortex+ Heroic). But I still find it needs some sort of give-and-take between player and GM in the narration of failure, which very often (obviously not always) may involve the PC doing something that the player would prefer the PC had not done.

I’ve never played burning wheel.

For the sword fighting example: “I attack the orc with my sword” is a sufficient statement of goal and approach. D&D doesn’t actually have much more complexity than that in terms of attacks.

Could better narrative improve a player’s outcome? Yeah absolutely. Should the player state some goal and approach that could not possibly fail, then the dice would never come into play at all. Properly applied, the action resolution system determines the outcome of actions where there is some amount of uncertainty as to whether that action may succeed or fail.

Some DMs run absolutely every attack through the dice. Some run every action through the dice too. That’s fine. But I don’t.

In the trap case, if you find and cut the tripwire, you have no chance of tripping over it. If the trip wire is a trigger, you might set off the effect. But you might also preempt the effect, thereby nullifying the potential consequence of tripping the wire.

That’s why my little account included my players playing smarter and having fewer dice rolls.

 

[pemerton]

It also assumes a mechanically mediated approach to play that doesn't suck out loud when it comes to modeling that kind of archetype, which is possibly one of the least-warranted assumptions in the history of the hobby.

Seriously, you need to find some better games!

 

[pemerton]

Properly applied, the action resolution system determines the outcome of actions where there is some amount of uncertainty as to whether that action may succeed or fail.

Some DMs run absolutely every attack through the dice. Some run every action through the dice too. That’s fine. But I don’t.

I assume you're talking here about 5e. (Eg there are some RPGs where the rules are "say 'yes' or roll the dice", and the test for saying "yes" isn't uncertainty but stakes, theme and pacing.)

In the context of 5e, what factors do you think feed into uncertainty? Eg do you worry about the sun getting in a fighter's eyes? Or the chance that someone might sneeze? Are you able to give an example of an approach to killing an orc via swordplay that wouldn't require an attack roll?

 

[Bawylie]

I assume you're talking here about 5e. (Eg there are some RPGs where the rules are "say 'yes' or roll the dice", and the test for saying "yes" isn't uncertainty but stakes, theme and pacing.)

In the context of 5e, what factors do you think feed into uncertainty? Eg do you worry about the sun getting in a fighter's eyes? Or the chance that someone might sneeze? Are you able to give an example of an approach to killing an orc via swordplay that wouldn't require an attack roll?

I am talking about 5E.

I don’t worry about the sun or sneezing.

I can definitely think of an example whereby a player can kill an orc with a sword without requiring an attack roll. Or a damage roll. Say for instance the player has gone for the classic move of disarming the opponent and putting them into a hold with a blade to the throat. No need for an attack roll when the player then declares they cut the opponent’s throat. There might’ve been uncertainty getting up to that point, but once there, it’s automatic.

Here’s another. The player is such a high level that the orc isn’t even a real challenge. There’s no real uncertainty that the sword swinging player will lose the duel. There’s no reason to require attack and damage rolls.

So yeah. There’s a few scenarios where a smarter move avoids dice. And there’s a few where there simply isn’t any question about the outcome.

 

[pemerton]

I can definitely think of an example whereby a player can kill an orc with a sword without requiring an attack roll. Or a damage roll. Say for instance the player has gone for the classic move of disarming the opponent and putting them into a hold with a blade to the throat. No need for an attack roll when the player then declares they cut the opponent’s throat. There might’ve been uncertainty getting up to that point, but once there, it’s automatic.

When GMing 4e I treat the effect of a successufl manoeuvre of that sort as "minionising" the NPC. So then a successful attack will kill/disable - but that final check is still needed.

The way that combat is resolved in 4e generally means that those sorts of minionising moves aren't possible - or, rather, are what you get to when you've reduced the NPC's hit points down to a small handful. Minionising as an end-run around the combat mechanics is something that happens in a skill challenge or similar non-combat context.

 

[aramis erak]

I'd require an attack roll on the held target... hefty bonuses, but still, a roll needed. In 5E, Advantage, and the AC takes disadvantage (which, for a fixed score, like Passive Perception or AC, is a -5).
There's still a chance of failure; a momentary distraction is all some need to do the disarm.