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

 

[billd91]

Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency.

My view is that players agreeing to toss a coin doesn't abridge their agency; and that - by pretty strict analogy - players agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a resolution process doesn't either.

I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here. I was replying to a post by [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], which was in turn a response to a particular post of mine, about using a mechanical system to resolve an argument between players about what to do next.

Here is a repost:

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 should also add that, at least once in my BW campaign, a dispute between PCs has been resolved via Duel of Wits.

As I've explained, I don't believe that this sort of resolution burdens player agency, for just the same reason that agreeing to toss a coin would.

Yeah, see, I think there are very few things about this quote that doesn't set off multiple red flags for players like me and Lanefan. I can't speak for him, but I can start with my reasons for finding this problematic.
1) Players having XP incentives to PvP. I'm not necessarily against reasonable PvP that grows out of situation, but I sure don't give my players incentives to antagonize each other.
2) Interminable PC vs PC arguments - that's not a failure in the game grinding to a halt, it's a failure in players to make reasonable compromises, and that's dysfunction masquerading as role playing.
3) Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do.
4) The general trend in real PC control powers over the years - whether magical or superpower - is to substantially limit their impact and duration. Using a social mechanic, or any other mechanic, to determine decision-making for indefinite time periods is contrary to that trend - WAY contrary.
5) If this really is a case of players at loggerheads, that should be resolved out of character. Trying to resolve player issues as if they're PC issues - usually doesn't work. If it's PCs at absolute loggerheads, then we're back at #2 above.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

3) Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do./snip

But, therein lies the point. If the 1 term mechanic is out arguing the captain with multiple levels of Leadership, because we refuse to engage mechanics between players, then the mechanic player isn't actually playing his character.

Why should I reward poor play? In my mind, if your character shouldn't be able to do something, but, you go right ahead and do it, that's poor play. You're not playing the character you brought to the table. If you don't want your character bossed around, then maybe being a 1-term mechanic was a very poor choice.

How believable would it be if fresh out to the academy ensigns routinely told Picard off? Everyone keeps going on and on about immersion and how removing player agency is immersion breaking, but, what immersion? When you refuse to actually play the character you brought to the table, but, instead, play whatever the heck exists in your head, that's not immersion.

To me, it's far, far more immersion breaking when the player refuses to actually inhabit the head of his character.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, see, I think there are very few things about this quote that doesn't set off multiple red flags for players like me and Lanefan. I can't speak for him, but I can start with my reasons for finding this problematic.

Oddly, though I somewhat disagree with just about all your points below I still find my self arriving at the same conclusion.

1) Players having XP incentives to PvP. I'm not necessarily against reasonable PvP that grows out of situation, but I sure don't give my players incentives to antagonize each other.

Ditto here, but I didn't get the sense from the examples given that this was even an issue.

2) Interminable PC vs PC arguments - that's not a failure in the game grinding to a halt, it's a failure in players to make reasonable compromises, and that's dysfunction masquerading as role playing.

Or it's just two or more players playing stubborn characters in character, as they should. Just because the characters disagree to the point of digging in their heels doesn't automatically mean there's dysfunction at the table, though it certainly happens. Even then, however, I still say let 'em argue it out. (if all else fails, I've in the past seen the rest of a party carry on their own way and leave two arguing characters behind... )

3) Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do.

Well, players sometimes do too, in a way: the loudmouth always overtalking the shyer quieter player, for example.

That said, one assumes the DM would - if such mechanics were used to reslove a PC-vs.-PC argument - enforce upon them the requisite penalties/bonuses given by what those PCs have going for them or not.

4) The general trend in real PC control powers over the years - whether magical or superpower - is to substantially limit their impact and duration. Using a social mechanic, or any other mechanic, to determine decision-making for indefinite time periods is contrary to that trend - WAY contrary.

This might perhaps be another reason I don't like social mechanics; I don't agree with the nerfing on the magical side that you refer to, and the power level there colours my view of social mechanics and what they could potentially do.

5) If this really is a case of players at loggerheads, that should be resolved out of character. Trying to resolve player issues as if they're PC issues - usually doesn't work. If it's PCs at absolute loggerheads, then we're back at #2 above.

If it's players at loggerheads and the argument spills out of character then the smackdown hammer comes out. If it's just characters at loggerheads they can go on all night for all I care.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

If it's just characters at loggerheads they can go on all night for all I care.

Whereas I do care. If the discussion is just going round in circles, and seems to be getting no closer to agreement, I want to bring it to a resolution.

Yeah, see, I think there are very few things about this quote that doesn't set off multiple red flags for players like me and Lanefan. I can't speak for him, but I can start with my reasons for finding this problematic.
1) Players having XP incentives to PvP. I'm not necessarily against reasonable PvP that grows out of situation, but I sure don't give my players incentives to antagonize each other.

When players can resolve conflicts between their PCs using the mechanics, the conflicts don't generally produce antagonism, at least in my experience.

More generally - the argument against something I'm doing is that my players need to be protected from the consequences of their own RPGing? That's a new one!

Interminable PC vs PC arguments - that's not a failure in the game grinding to a halt, it's a failure in players to make reasonable compromises, and that's dysfunction masquerading as role playing.

So reasonable compromises are good, but mechanically mediated ones are bad? Because they're not reasonable?

In any event, I don't regard players arguing about the proper way forward as bad. When the stakes are high, and different PCs have differing goals, then there should be disagreement and debate. But it can be handy to have a way to resolve it that doesn't require any player to squib in the play of their PC. Mechanical resolution is one way to do that.

Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do.

Well, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] says, that's part of the point. Bringing a high-CHA PC to the table sometimes enhances your ability to get your way. (In Traveller PC generation is highly random, but each player in our game runs 2 PCs. I think on at least one occasion one player has had PCs on different sides of the debate about what to do next.)

Anyway, this goes back to my basic point: if the players agree, then there is no burden on their agency.

The general trend in real PC control powers over the years - whether magical or superpower - is to substantially limit their impact and duration. Using a social mechanic, or any other mechanic, to determine decision-making for indefinite time periods is contrary to that trend - WAY contrary.

You seem to be talking about one system: D&D.

I think you're also misdescribing what is happening in the episodes of play I describe. The players are committed to the PCs going somewhere as a party (because they, the players, all want to be part of the action). But they disagree as to where (eg one group wants to make planetfall, the other wants to keep going; one group wants to follow a lead to the Abyss, another wants to follow a lead to the Underdark; etc). What is being resolved is which way to go. In the fiction, the PCs of the player(s) who lost the contest agree to go along with the others. That is not "determining decision-making for indefinite time periods". It's agreeing to one proposal.

If this really is a case of players at loggerheads, that should be resolved out of character. Trying to resolve player issues as if they're PC issues - usually doesn't work. If it's PCs at absolute loggerheads, then we're back at #2 above.

Why? Why is the players agreeing to a resolution mechanic that reflects what it is that their PCs bring to the debate unreasonable?

I mean, you say that "it usually doesn't work". I'm here to tell you that, for me, it worked. Luke Crane reports that it worked for him too. I guess you're saying that it doesn't, or wouldn't, work for you, but why does that mean my group is doing something wrong?

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, therein lies the point. If the 1 term mechanic is out arguing the captain with multiple levels of Leadership, because we refuse to engage mechanics between players, then the mechanic player isn't actually playing his character.

Why should I reward poor play? In my mind, if your character shouldn't be able to do something, but, you go right ahead and do it, that's poor play. You're not playing the character you brought to the table. If you don't want your character bossed around, then maybe being a 1-term mechanic was a very poor choice.

How believable would it be if fresh out to the academy ensigns routinely told Picard off? Everyone keeps going on and on about immersion and how removing player agency is immersion breaking, but, what immersion? When you refuse to actually play the character you brought to the table, but, instead, play whatever the heck exists in your head, that's not immersion.

To me, it's far, far more immersion breaking when the player refuses to actually inhabit the head of his character.

I'll point out...once again...that you are choosing a particular form ("actor stance", it's apparently called) of 'immersion', and many of us don't find actor stance very compelling or interesting. Or immersive.

Ultimately, the games are about the players making decisions and then narrating how their characters achieve them. Sometimes we use dice to determine their success. If we are also using the dice to make the decisions, then why are we bothering to include players?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next.

That's what you're arguing for, not against.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency..

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is arguing for using no social mechanics at all, not against certain applications of them.

So far, it looks like windmills and not real positions you're tilting against.

 

[Aldarc]

How believable would it be if fresh out to the academy ensigns routinely told Picard off?

Shut up, Wesley.

 

[aramis erak]

Whereas I do care. If the discussion is just going round in circles, and seems to be getting no closer to agreement, I want to bring it to a resolution.

When players can resolve conflicts between their PCs using the mechanics, the conflicts don't generally produce antagonism, at least in my experience.

Mine, as well.

You seem to be talking about one system: D&D.

A system which is more than 75% of all recorded plays and about 80% of sales, worldwide, in the RPG marketspace. If one is going to pick a system to be the exemplar, it's the best choice.

I mean, you say that "it usually doesn't work". I'm here to tell you that, for me, it worked. Luke Crane reports that it worked for him too. I guess you're saying that it doesn't, or wouldn't, work for you, but why does that mean my group is doing something wrong?

I also have had it work. And work beautifully.

One of the issues, tho', is that there are two major constituencies (and a handful more minor ones), and the workable varies between them:
1) groups who are largely strangers or casual acquaintances, usually playing in public venues.
2) groups who are long term friends, usually playing at someone's home.

They react differently. The tools in BW work great with group 1.

They're not needed much in group 2.

There won't be a consensus because the solutions are different for the various constituencies.

 

[Hussar]

I'll point out...once again...that you are choosing a particular form ("actor stance", it's apparently called) of 'immersion', and many of us don't find actor stance very compelling or interesting. Or immersive.

Ultimately, the games are about the players making decisions and then narrating how their characters achieve them. Sometimes we use dice to determine their success. If we are also using the dice to make the decisions, then why are we bothering to include players?

So your immersion in the game is independent of the character you choose to play?

That seems like a very strange approach to immersion. I’ve never heard of pawn or avatar play as being a good route to immersion.

 

[5ekyu]

In actual play for my game from their last mission...

PCs set in at a station collected their pay and immediately began planning an ecpedition to a graveyard of ships for a salvage run to get themselves a ship to refurb and rebuild.

A local official who had had some prior favorable contact got in touch, confirmed their plans and offered a second mission - gather id, dna, tags etc on as many of the dead in the ships so the next of kin could be identified.

Offered to pay so much for dna and more for full remains.

Group was inclined to say yes but suspicious and concerned about cargo space etc, so he offered to help with hiring etc for their mission.

Solved the question and they went out both sides benefitted with no need for the persuasive npc rolling to change their mind and force them to accept.

When they got back, even sweetened deal by helping them arrange favorable sales of salvage (basically he used his "sales time" while they were salvaging instead of them having to after they got back) establishing more good will for next time.

"NPC rolled, your character likes the deal" might have been easier but much less interesting, imo.