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

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hey, it's DM Empowerment, all the way, but that's not what I was trying to recall, rather it was a specific guideline & it's context I wasn't 100% certain of, not whether it was a guideline.

It's really a given in any RPG, whether they spell out a Rule 0 or Golden Rule or not, or even go out of their way to claim the opposite, that the GM can change the rules of the game as much as he wants.

Where 5e and many other games lean toward further empowering the GM isn't in granting that unnecessary permission explicitly, but in leaving places where GM judgement must be exercised to keep the game flowing.

I had the impression saves, attack rolls and maybe a few other things didn't quite go there...

It doesn't seem to me you are reading what they are saying correctly. I don't think they are arguing that because of Rule 0 they can override the combat rules. They are saying that whether or not a roll is required to accomplish a task is up to them, and if they rule that no attack roll is necessary then it's not 'using Rule 0 to change the rules' to allow automatic success. Bawylie is invoking Rule 0 to decide when tests are necessary, not to change the rules.

To argue that's changing the rules would be to argue that any time a character opens a door he is supposed to make a strength check.

If, on the other hand, the DM says you have to make an attack roll and says "...but if you roll a miss then it's still a hit..." then he's using Rule 0 to house rule.

 

[pemerton]

It's really a given in any RPG, whether they spell out a Rule 0 or Golden Rule or not, or even go out of their way to claim the opposite, that the GM can change the rules of the game as much as he wants.

This isn't a given at all! The rules of a game are subject to decision by all the participants. That's just a basic fact about games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This isn't a given at all! The rules of a game are subject to decision by all the participants. That's just a basic fact about games.

It depends on table dynamics, like how hard it is to find a game or for a game to find new players. With most, more niche, RPGs finding enough players to run can be a challenge, while with the current ed if D&D there's usually a lot of players relative to DMs, so DMs are empowered in more than just the rules.

It doesn't seem to me you are reading what they are saying correctly. I don't think they are arguing that because of Rule 0 they can override the combat rules. .

This sounded like a recapitulation of 3e's (ironic, in retrospect) Rule 0, itself, clearly derivative of Storyteller's Golden Rule:

"The definitive rule is “it’s up to you” and everything else is a guideline or best practice "

5e doesn't give it a cute name and precise definition, but DM Empowerment permeates it. So, that's not what I was unsure about, rather it was the use and context of 'uncertainty,' which in the brief moments I've had with my PH this weekend didn't jump out at me. I guess I'm remembering something from one of the pdfs...

::shrug::
Not that important to the broader discussion...

 

[Guest 6801328]

It depends on table dynamics, like how hard it is to find a game or for a game to find new players. With most, more niche, RPGs finding enough players to run can be a challenge, while with the current ed if D&D there's usually a lot of players relative to DMs, so DMs are empowered in more than just the rules.

This sounded like a recapitulation of 3e's (ironic, in retrospect) Rule 0, itself, clearly derivative of Storyteller's Golden Rule:

"The definitive rule is “it’s up to you” and everything else is a guideline or best practice "

5e doesn't give it a cute name and precise definition, but DM Empowerment permeates it. So, that's not what I was unsure about, rather it was the use and context of 'uncertainty,' which in the brief moments I've had with my PH this weekend didn't jump out at me. I guess I'm remembering something from one of the pdfs...

::shrug::
Not that important to the broader discussion...

The "rule 0" may not be important, but the point they are making is: that whether or not a roll is required is up to the GM, so in a given situation ruling that no roll is required is not changing the rules.

I'm touchy about this because it annoys me when...certain people...use the argument, dripping with sarcasm, "Sure you can do that, because I guess ultimately the DM/GM can change any rule he wants...." It's really saying, "My interpretation is RAW and your interpretation is houseruling."

Likewise, I don't think it's "DM Empowerment" to rule that no roll is required. It's the DM's primary job to determine if a roll is required, and, if so, which one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm touchy about this because it annoys me when...certain people...use the argument, dripping with sarcasm, "Sure you can do that, because I guess ultimately the DM/GM can change any rule he wants...." It's really saying, "My interpretation is RAW and your interpretation is houseruling."

Nod. All the more so since this is a general RPG discussion, so specific systems are, at most, of interest as examples.

Likewise, I don't think it's "DM Empowerment" to rule that no roll is required. It's the DM's primary job to determine if a roll is required, and, if so, which one.

Where 5e rather cleverly supports DM Empowerment, in that context, is in giving no fixed DC, nor even specific applicable bonus, to most potential resolutions outside attack rolls, saves, and a few specific skill applications, so they must turn to the DM before rolling...

 

[pemerton]

Just on this point - I agree with your particular example.

But Luke Crane does comment, in one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, that in his experience the use of social mechanics to resolve PC vs PC arguments does (i) help the group at the table reach consensus on what to do next, and (ii) makes players feel more comfortable to have their PC argue with another PC, precisely because there's a way of resolving it at the table which sees the game go on, rather than having everything grind to a halt due to this social issue with no straightforward resolution.

In my Cortex+ Heroic game the PCs argue with one another from time to time, inflicting mental or emotional stress on one another (because some of the PCs have milestones which yield XP when this happens, some of the players are always on the lookout for a chance to do this). In my 4e game once, and in my Classic Traveller game more than once, I've used an impromptu social mechanic to resolve a seemingly interminable PC-vs-PC argument about what to do next - eg in Traveller I have each side roll, with a side that includes a noble, or a PC with Leader expertise, getting bonuses.

The side that loses agrees to go along with the side that wins - at the table first and foremost, and therefore in the fiction also.

I'm generally of Lanefan's mind here and I normally don't have a problem with game mechanics taking away agency, even via mundane methods... but only for a little while. I have no problem with the otherwise controversial Pathfinder feat Antagonize - which allows a character to force another to launch an attack at them via a skill check. But then it's a very short duration - just enough time for the target to get a turn and be compelled to attack the antagonizing character (be it a PC or NPC). The effect is pretty much limited to just that one attack and that's an important distinction when overriding or compelling a player's control over his PC. The general trend in D&D/PF and superhero games is to generally limit the effects of mind control-type abilities - either to short durations or to non-self destructive behaviors.

Using a social skill or other mechanic to engage in PvP to determine the outcome of an argument or compel a PC to agree to rescue the nobleman's daughter is a bit more of an open-ended time frame. If one crewmember wins the argument (via some kind of mechanical resolution) over the others on what mission to pursue next in Traveller, that has a duration of weeks in all likelihood (considering each FTL jump is 1 week). The same may be true of persuading the PCs to rescue someone's daughter - a fairly long duration may follow. This is directly contrary to the trend you see in powers, magical and super, that can be expected to override someone's will in extraordinary ways (in contrast to the ordinary ways of making a good pitch and offering a lot of money as a bribe). And that's why certain kinds of agency affecting examples that have been used here, I find very problematic.

billd91 refers to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], but it was my post above that Lanefan described as "awful . . . and . . . worse".

Players sometimes disagree with one another. At the table, these disagreements have to be resolved. When they are resolved, not everyone will get everything that they want.

There are various ways of resolving disagreements. Tossing a coin is one time-honoured one. Given that we are talking in this context about RPGs, most of which use more sophisticated versions of coin-tossing to resolve outcomes, I really can't see what is outrageous about players using those methods to settle their disagreements.

(Also: the fact that a FTL Jump is 1 week in the fiction seems irrelevant to anything; that week takes a couple of minutes to resolve at the table.)

 

[pemerton]

I ran a session of Cortex+ Heroic yesterday.

The PCs entered the mountain peaks, still heading north on their quest to find out what is happening to the Northern Lights, and why a terrible winter has fallen.

They were confronted by a group of mountain folk - a wyvern rider with a flight of wyverns, and Asgeir their chieftain.

The PC swordthane tried to persuade Asgeir to let the group pass (at the table, a social manoeuvre); but Asgeir refused to yield, insisting that the group would not pass, leaving the PC uncertain about what to do next (at the table, a successful reaction with additional DM-side resource spent to inflict Mental Stress on the PC).

The situation therefore turned into a combat; and the PC sorcerer cleared the snow from the narrow defile so that the PCs would be able to pass without any assistance from the mountain folk. But neither the wyvern rider nor Asgeir was beaten down: when the wyvern rider was brought down from his wyvern, he tried to stab the sorcerer, who ensnared him with sorcery (at the table, stressed out with mental stress); and the PC troll, who was fighting Asgeir, inflicted physical stress but also emotional stress, and it was the latter that led to Asgeir's defeat (at the table, stressed out via emotional stress), shamed at the realisation that he could stand successfully against this troll.

The players then decided that they would persuade Asgeir to lead them through the pass to the next stage of their quest. So the sorcerer roused him (at the table, removing the emotional stress) and then another PC (the troll, the swordthane or both - I can't remember properly) persuaded him to lead the PCs through the mountains. In the fiction, Asgeir took the PCs to the mountain village; at the table, the players were able to get the advantage of a transition scene rather than moving straight on to another action scene. This meant that the PCs were able to heal, and the players could spend XP. The PCs also learned that they would meet the Earth Giant if they travelled further up into the mountains, which gave them the opportunity to prepare various charms to help fight giants.

The PCs then struck out, and indeed met the Earth Giant. Again, the swordthane went first. He tried to persuade the Earth Giant to let the PCs pass, but the giant refused (at the table, I rolled a successful reaction for the giant). The troll then tried a different approach (the PC does not have Social expertise but does have Trading expertise): he asked the giant what the price would be for the PCs to pass. At the table, this succeeded, imposing a Name My Price complication on the giant (rated at d8). The Earth Giant then replied "I will let you pass if you promise to defeat the valkyries for me, and stop them taking souls for the gods". At the table, I rolled an action against the troll to impose an appropriate complication on him - but the player rolled a successful reaction, and spent a player-side resource to impose an effect on the giant. In the fiction, the troll retorted that the price being demanded was too high - stepping up the Name My Price complication to d10.

Before the negotiations could continue, the PC berserker - who has foresworn attempt to talk and reason, in favour of action - hurled his net at the giant to try and ensnare some part of its body. The giant, however, leapt away (at the table, the reaction - which included the giant's Leaping power - was successful). We decided that this ended the scene.

This is illustrative of how social mechanics work, in my experience of them.

 

[billd91]

billd91 refers to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], but it was my post above that Lanefan described as "awful . . . and . . . worse".

Players sometimes disagree with one another. At the table, these disagreements have to be resolved. When they are resolved, not everyone will get everything that they want.

There are various ways of resolving disagreements. Tossing a coin is one time-honoured one. Given that we are talking in this context about RPGs, most of which use more sophisticated versions of coin-tossing to resolve outcomes, I really can't see what is outrageous about players using those methods to settle their disagreements.

(Also: the fact that a FTL Jump is 1 week in the fiction seems irrelevant to anything; that week takes a couple of minutes to resolve at the table.)

Players agreeing to flip a coin is players agreeing among themselves not one overriding another’s wishes via a PC’s skill check or power, as described in the initial exchange. So different I’m actually shocked I have to bring that up.

 

[pemerton]

Players agreeing to flip a coin is players agreeing among themselves not one overriding another’s wishes via a PC’s skill check or power, as described in the initial exchange. So different I’m actually shocked I have to bring that up.

What's the difference between agreeing to flip a coin and agreeing to a mechanical resolution?

 

[Aldarc]

"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'sMorale rules are not exclusive to NPCs, either.I tend toward the simulationist mode of thought..."

To me the issue is **who** decides which actions fall into "good RP" for a situation and who decides which actions don't.

IMHO, I would say that "good RP" is less about "*who* decides which actions fall into 'good RP' for a situation," but, rather, it is more about the ethical framework that guides tabletop RP as praxis.

In regards to your central issue, however, my own experiences have led me to believe that these are mostly resolved by the group at the table rather than simply the character's player or GM. (This delves into the issue of the Social Contract of the game table and its participants.) The player tends to be the most invested for their character, but the hermeneutics of one's "character" often gets debated by all players and the GM. For example, the group may be talking to Player 1 about their Character 1, "The intent of your RP choices may be X, but you are coming across to the group is not X but as Y instead."