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

 

[Shasarak]

But, that's the funny thing. My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think. And no one really bitches about that.

OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.

And we consider that good role playing?

Are you sure about that? My feeling is that your 1st level NPC Wizard just effectively committed suicide by PC, there is no way that my Players would let that stand,

 

[Hussar]

One of those is magic and we expect magic to break reality. The other is less tangible.

But, even if less tangible, it's certainly something we can envision. This highly charismatic person who is an expert in diplomacy (not the skill, just talking to people) is trying to convince you of something. In a game, we're limited by the DM's ability to portray that. So, we have to rely on the players to react in a plausible manner.

However, frequently, players will completely ignore the stats of the NPC and react in whatever way they want to. Because, dammit, it's my PC and you can't tell me what to think. Never minding that for entire rest of the game, we allow the mechanics to guide play.

Are you sure about that? My feeling is that your 1st level NPC Wizard just effectively committed suicide by PC, there is no way that my Players would let that stand,

Funny. But, the point still remains. The wizard can do that.

 

[pemerton]

the thing the players really bring to the table are choices... Start taking that away, why do they need to be there?

There are all sorts of limits on the declaration of actions in a RPG. For instance, if my PC is in a pit, then I can declare "I try and climb out" but I can't meaningfully declare "I try and walk forward". Social influence doesn't seem very unique in this respect.

One of those is magic and we expect magic to break reality. The other is less tangible.

I live in a world in which magic doesn't exist, and yet people are influenced by others all the time. It's not that intangible.

 

[Lanefan]

But, that's the funny thing. My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think. And no one really bitches about that.

OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.

I've such an NPC in my current game. Some of the players don't like him at all but the characters generally do, because I bring his high Cha into play by always framing my words so as to appeal to the PCs' best interests when trying to get them to do what he wants (usually, go off on some dangerous adventure) - he knows just what to say, and how to say it. (in other words, I as DM know what makes these people tick and put that knowledge to merciless use when RPing this guy)

And if he still can't convince them? Well, so be it - I tried...

Lanefan

 

[hawkeyefan]

People are convinced all the time to do things against their own interests. This can span the range of a salesman convincing you that you need the warranty all the way to a cult leader convincing you to drink the Kool-Aid.

So this certainly seems like something that should be possible in the game. But obvioulsy it’s a bit problematic for some.

This is likely because resorting to mechanics is an overt invocation of game rules for a covert action by a character in the game. It’s a bit odd in that sense. Imagine the salesman said before his warranty pitch “I’m going to use my natural charisma and my position in the buyer/salesman dynamic to convince you to get the warranty. You ready?”

No one minds when rules are evoked for overt actions like jumping over a wall or hitting an orc with a sword. But lacking a “Gullibility” score or some other mechanical representation I’ve never seen in a game, it’s not very easy to abdicate. This is why I said earlier to put the action in the player’s hands; don’t have the NPC make an Influence roll, have the PC make an Insight roll. Or do an opposed roll, I suppose.

Ultimately though, if you want the PC to consider an action that an NPC is suggesting he take to be a viable action, then I think it’s best if the GM tries to not rely on mechanics to do so. Instead, use the situation to try and convince the PC. Make the points that the NPC would make, have a counter for the concerns the PC would raise.

In other words, make a convincing argument. That’s the same thing the NPC would be doing.

Again, I get why some folks think that the rules should allow for this, but I just think it’s best to let the player decide. P

But for influencing through words? That’s tricker to translate to game mechanics. Especially since no mattwr what anyone may tell me, I will never get the warranty. It’s up to me.

The reverse can be true, too. People can just as readily ignore the advice of someone acting in their best interests. Someone can be convincing as hell about eliminating bacon from my diet....but I don’t care what stats they use or how charming they are or how great of an analogy they can make, I’m still gonna eat bacon.

 

[pemerton]

lacking a “Gullibility” score or some other mechanical representation I’ve never seen in a game

The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.

This is likely because resorting to mechanics is an overt invocation of game rules for a covert action by a character in the game. It’s a bit odd in that sense. Imagine the salesman said before his warranty pitch “I’m going to use my natural charisma and my position in the buyer/salesman dynamic to convince you to get the warranty. You ready?”

I'm not sure it's really covert to try and persuade someone.

I mean, a to hit roll represents the other fighter using his/her natural deftness to wrongfoot and feint the PC. If the opponent said "I'm about to feint you" would that make sense? Probably not (at least not all the time).

if you want the PC to consider an action that an NPC is suggesting he take to be a viable action, then I think it’s best if the GM tries to not rely on mechanics to do so. Instead, use the situation to try and convince the PC. Make the points that the NPC would make, have a counter for the concerns the PC would raise.

Personally, I want the decision situation for me, as a player, to match or correlate to the decision situation for my PC. Trying to persuade my PC by reasons that don't speak to me is tricky - it can require me to step ouside my inhabitation of the PC and reason it through like a 3rd person ("acting" rather than "being").

Mechanical changes can be one way to generate reasons that plug this gap.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.

In 5e D&D, in a flurry of brilliant innovation & revolutionary outside the box thinking, it was changed from 3e's Sense Motive to Passive Insight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Dying Earth and HeroQuest revised both have this sort of thing. In Burning Wheel it's the slightly more generic Will stat.

In 5e D&D, in a flurry of brilliant innovative outside the box thinking, it was changed from 3e's Sense Motive to the revolutionary new Passive Insight. (Which they totally stole from Monty Cook in his brief association with the Next playtest).

 

[darkbard]

In 5e D&D, in a flurry of brilliant innovative outside the box thinking, it was changed from 3e's Sense Motive to the revolutionary new Passive Insight. (Which they totally stole from Monty Cook in his brief association with the Next playtest).

Actually, Tony, that innovation, the passive Insight score (and, more prominently, passive Perception score), began in 4E.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, that's the funny thing. My NPC 1st level wizard can cast Charm Person and tell you what you think. And no one really bitches about that.

OTOH, my 20th level high Cha NPC with the most fantastic diplomacy score imaginable, cannot influence your character in the slightest.

And we consider that good role playing?

Oh, hey...I've been summoned!

Assuming you genuinely are interested in this apparent paradox, and not merely soapboxing, here's my view...

When the 'Charm Person' gets cast (and my character fails his/her saving throw) my character has effectively been hijacked for the duration of the spell. Maybe I still get to control the character (that varies by table) but it's no longer "my" character. And that's ok, for the same reason that it's ok when I don't get to control my character when he drops to zero HP: there is a rule for what happens in that situation.

But the "Persuasion" skill is not a Charm Person spell. When you roll a modified 35 on your Persuasion skill it doesn't mean you have persuaded anybody, it means you were persuasive. See the difference? Your skill success says something about you not about me. My reaction to your silver tongue, on the other hand, is entirely up to me.

Now, as to the question about roleplaying...

When my character drops to zero HP and so I stop taking actions, am I roleplaying, or simply playing by the rules?

Similarly, when I fail my saving throw vs. Charm and follow the instructions of the caster, am I roleplaying or simply playing by the rules?

In both cases, I would argue that's not roleplaying. Or at least, not very interesting roleplaying.

So if your high Cha NPC rolls a 20 on Persuasion and anything other than being persuaded is frowned upon at the table, is it roleplaying if I agree to be persuaded? I thinketh not.

I will simultaneously agree that it is also un-good roleplaying to completely ignore the Persuade success as a matter of policy, or because in this case I don't like the implications. But the Persuade success is really just an environmental cue to guide my roleplaying, just as much as the description of a delicious meal would be. (How ridiculous would it be if a DM said, "The cooking is delicious and you all find it very enjoyable. Please roleplay that.") I am free to interpret those cues however I want, hopefully in a way that adds depth to the character concept I have been exploring and expanding upon.

Then, if my interpretations consistently clash with your sense of roleplaying aesthetics, we will figure that out and maybe stop playing at the same table.

Uh-oh, duration on that summoning spell is expiring....

POOF!