Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Mort]

In another thread (which I won't link to because it's really, really long and not on this topic) I posted the following:

I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.

The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him. Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain (essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it)?

I think option b can be a great way for the players to influence the game world – yet too many DMs would look at their map, not see a route, and dismiss this out of hand because it doesn’t fit their (and only their) story.

One of the reponses I received was the following:

See, this is putting story ahead of setting, which is where I object, because it runs the risk of immersion being lost. Now, you can definitely keep players immersed while doing it, but I think it's akin to what certain posters have labeled "illusionism", which there's an objection to. I mean, you like that style of play, and a lot of other people do, too.

However, if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them (this is close to how I'd feel as GM). And, I'd personally feel the need to disclose my gaming style to the group, as I find establishing the social contract very important. They should know what to expect out of me, and what to expect out of the game. We've specifically voiced that we wouldn't like the style you've described in the game, so changing it would be a major 180 on them.

Again, it's just preference. As always, play what you like

This surprised me a bit as I've not yet had a negative response to giving some narrative control to the players (in fact I would have to describe response as overwhelmingly positive). That said, I have a pretty limited sample as I don't really have time to DM outside of my regular group.

I will also say that I disagree that story is being put ahead of setting here as giving narrative control to players can still easily place setting first.

Anyway I thought this could really use it's own thread as I find it a very interesting topic.

Thoughts?

 

[Nagol]

As a player, if I ask if I know of a faster route, I'm asking if I know -- not if I can invent one. Sometimes such things will exist -- if the BBEG is traveling by a meandering main road, a congested route, or at a limited speed to avoid attracting legal attention, for examples. Other times, the route between A and B is straight and there is nothing better to try.

Generally, I prefer to play my character in a seeming rational and deterministic world. I want to express change in that world through character actions not through authorial control. Any long term satisfaction I get from a game comes from my actions succesfully shaping that world from within.

In many ways, I have the same attitude towards player narrative control as I do DM fudging. At its best, authorial control can lead to more exciting play as the play group sets up the situations as just hit/barely missed as it feels most satisfying, but I find it undercuts any feeling of accomplishment or longer term enjoyment I have in a game.

 

[Hussar]

But, the thing is Nagol, it's extremely unlikely the DM will actually have the detail to know the definitive answer to that question. Unless you've mapped your city down to a full zoom Google Maps level, it's virtually impossible to answer that question.

After all, even if you have the major and minor routes on your map, it's unlikely you have all alleyways and whatnot as well.

So, the player asks, "Do I know of a faster way?"

The DM rolls some dice (Kn Local or Streetwise, or whatever your system of choice uses) and says, "Yes, you know a faster way."

Have you been cheated in any way when the DM made the determination based on your rolls?

 

[Mort]

As a player, if I ask if I know of a faster route, I'm asking if I know -- not if I can invent one. Sometimes such things will exist -- if the BBEG is traveling by a meandering main road, a congested route, or at a limited speed to avoid attracting legal attention, for examples. Other times, the route between A and B is straight and there is nothing better to try.

Generally, I prefer to play my character in a seeming rational and deterministic world. I want to express change in that world through character actions not through authorial control. Any long term satisfaction I get from a game comes from my actions succesfully shaping that world from within.

In many ways, I have the same attitude towards player narrative control as I do DM fudging. At its best, authorial control can lead to more exciting play as the play group sets up the situations as just hit/barely missed as it feels most satisfying, but I find it undercuts any feeling of accomplishment or longer term enjoyment I have in a game.

Interesting.

[edit: Hussar beat me to the punch! I'd give experience but have to spread some more around.)

I don't equate narrative control to DM fudging though. DM fudging is generaly = take a result that already happened (ie a die roll or a HP total) and change it (for the better or worse of the players). This can certainly make a player feel cheated as now the DM essentially told them what happened, as opposed to the player acomplishing it.

Player narrative control is quite different (almost opposite in fact). The player is telling the DM in some way that his character through familiarity with the actual setting knows something the DM has not necessarily planned for or already put in (thus differentiating it from an already determined result). This is still accomplished through mechanics (a geography roll, a streetwise roll, etc.) but success indicates the character is aware of a previously unexposed aspect of the setting. The only (though possible big) difference is that the unexposed aspect is at the player's behest not the DMs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm with Nagol. As a player in a traditional rpg I am there to play my character and exert my influence on the setting from within that chosen role. If I was interested in authorial control I would write my own story instead of playing a game.

In this situation what has transpired to make the PC's believe that the villian isn't very familliar with the city?

If the character in question had relevant knowledge about the city then it certainly could influence the situation but that knowledge would first exist as an in-game character resourse.

 

[Nagol]

But, the thing is Nagol, it's extremely unlikely the DM will actually have the detail to know the definitive answer to that question. Unless you've mapped your city down to a full zoom Google Maps level, it's virtually impossible to answer that question.

After all, even if you have the major and minor routes on your map, it's unlikely you have all alleyways and whatnot as well.

So, the player asks, "Do I know of a faster way?"

The DM rolls some dice (Kn Local or Streetwise, or whatever your system of choice uses) and says, "Yes, you know a faster way."

Have you been cheated in any way when the DM made the determination based on your rolls?

In the original scenario, the DM looked down at is map and saw that there wasn't a faster route.

You don't need a full map zoom to know, really. Alleyways as side passages by and large are not faster unless there are extenuating circumstances -- like a meandering road when a straighter path is possible, heavy congestion on the path chosen, or a limt to speed on the path chosen that is possible to violate elsewhere. In fact, you are more likely to get stalled in narrow confines of the alley.

Now it may be a faster route does exist and the DM glancing down at the map sees the villain's route goes through Princes' Square and that hosts a farmers' market. Asking for a Knowledge:Local to suggest going around that block is fine.

Now it may be the case that the chase is impromptu and the DM doesn't have some deterministic path already chosen for the villain or even a map to the area. In that case, I prefer a random check to determine the intial set up and competing Knowledge:Local rolls to evade obstacles, if they exist.

 

[Nagol]

Interesting.

[edit: Hussar beat me to the punch! I'd give experience but have to spread some more around.)

I don't equate narrative control to DM fudging though. DM fudging is generaly = take a result that already happened (ie a die roll or a HP total) and change it (for the better or worse of the players). This can certainly make a player feel cheated as now the DM essentially told them what happened, as opposed to the player acomplishing it.

Player narrative control is quite different (almost opposite in fact). The player is telling the DM in some way that his character through familiarity with the actual setting knows something the DM has not necessarily planned for or already put in (thus differentiating it from an already determined result). This is still accomplished through mechanics (a geography roll, a streetwise roll, etc.) but success indicates the character is aware of a previously unexposed aspect of the setting. The only (though possible big) difference is that the unexposed aspect is at the player's behest not the DMs.

The player is not telling the DM that his character knows something the DM thought he didn't; the player is changing the world as the DM knows it.

Was there a shorter route? No. Is there a shorter route now? Yes.

Should that shorter route continue to exist in the future? Yes.

Could that shorter route have had an impact on campaign play in the past? Potentially.

Who has to track these effects? The DM. Now let's suppose that the PCs are engaged in a friendly rivalry to catch the villain that the DM thought was fleeing by the most direct route.

Player 1: Do I know a better route? I roll a 21!
DM: Yes, you'll catch him at...
Player 2: Wait a minute! I know this city better than him I roll a 25!
DM: OK you know an even better route. You'll catch him at...
Player 3: Hey wait a minute! Remember 13 sessions ago when I was fleeing from the ragamuffins! I found a terrific route out of here, I rolled somewhere in the mid-30s!.

How many better routes can exist? How long do they continue to exist? Why didn't the villain traveling by the most direct route take them?

 

[Mort]

In the original scenario, the DM looked down at is map and saw that there wasn't a faster route.

You don't need a full map zoom to know, really. Alleyways as side passages by and large are not faster unless there are extenuating circumstances -- like a meandering road when a straighter path is possible, heavy congestion on the path chosen, or a limt to speed on the path chosen that is possible to violate elsewhere. In fact, you are more likely to get stalled in narrow confines of the alley.

Maps are rarely (if ever) perfect and I do not believe they should be taken as gospel by the DM or the players except in rare circumstances.

Now it may be a faster route does exist and the DM glancing down at the map sees the villain's route goes through Princes' Square and that hosts a farmers' market. Asking for a Knowledge:Local to suggest going around that block is fine.

Right! now the question of the thread - can the player (say with a high enough knowledge local that the DM imposes) Look at the DM and say "It's Tuesday, I happen to know that there is always a farmer's market along the villain's route on Tuesday!" In other words, Is it solely the DMs pervue or can the player step in?

Now it may be the case that the chase is impromptu and the DM doesn't have some deterministic path already chosen for the villain or even a map to the area. In that case, I prefer a random check to determine the intial set up and competing Knowledge:Local rolls to evade obstacles, if they exist.

Another way to look at it - what's wrong with having an impromptu element (slightly subject to player control) in a larger majority of circumstances?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm all about giving the players narrative control and trying to reduce the power distance between DM and player.

The DM is responsible for staying true to the setting and maintaining verisimilitude, but I don't think this is usually that hard.

Personally, I'm a fan of the Cortex system (Serenity, BSG, etc.), which explicitly gives this sort of control to the players by letting them offer action points as a bribe to the DM in order for him to introduce favorable plot elements (and rewards the players with action points if they introduce new challenges for themselves).

In the above example, I think it's easy to imagine a way that the player's suggestion could be fruitful. Compare the player's knowledge to the villain's. There could be a hidden alleyway, a network of mages with teleportation portals, or a yearly parade that the villain didn't know would cross his path. Even to the extent that this seems narrativistic at the expense of simulation, who is to say that the DM's map is the best and most realistic reality you could be playing in? Having multiple sources of input into setting elements enhances verisimilitude in my mind, because the real world is not the product of a single mind. The DM's job is to, in a split second, judge the merits of such a suggestion from the player, and whether it seems purely self-serving for that player or whether it actually makes sense that local knowledge could yield a better route. It's not an easy job, but that's why we get paid the big bucks.

Hey, wait a second...

 

[Nagol]

And finally, I find it undercuts my feeling of accomplishment because it lets me sidestep the situations presented.

"Will my choices prevail in this situation?"

is under cut by

"How can I change this situation?"