To clarify what I mean by "narrative control", it is the power to dictate what happens in the story rather than deferring to any rule specific to the situation at hand.
Designing such a game is a matter of deciding how to apportion and limit such power.
Here's as an example of how something like that might play out. There's a GM, whose role in this particular hypothetical game is to have in mind a very general plot structure (in particular, a satisfyingly dramatic climactic scene) and direct the action along those lines with "course corrections". Basically, the GM has narrative control by default.
The GM plans to present a scene in which the heroes get ambushed by Loathly Lurkers, and one of them is sorely wounded with a poisoned arrow, but they slay all but the lead Lurker. That worthy, in his hasty escape, loses a map and missive that the heroes find. Her expectation is that the players will add to the story some solution to the poison problem, then use the map to infiltrate an enemy fortress and rescue the ally indicated in the letter as being held there.
However, when the first arrows fly, a player challenges the GM's narrative control. Chips are bid and dice are rolled, and the player wins. The player says that the arrows have non-deadly tips that inject a poison with a soporific effect. The Lurkers capture the heroes and take them to wherever Ally X is being held. Nobody challenges that.
That scene being resolved, narrative control returns to the GM. The players have ended up where she wanted to get them, but under different circumstances -- and by their choice. It was, in narrative terms, a good strategic choice. If the players had chosen some other direction for the next scene, then the GM would have just had to run with it and see how to use it to advance the plot.
Designing such a game is a matter of deciding how to apportion and limit such power.
Here's as an example of how something like that might play out. There's a GM, whose role in this particular hypothetical game is to have in mind a very general plot structure (in particular, a satisfyingly dramatic climactic scene) and direct the action along those lines with "course corrections". Basically, the GM has narrative control by default.
The GM plans to present a scene in which the heroes get ambushed by Loathly Lurkers, and one of them is sorely wounded with a poisoned arrow, but they slay all but the lead Lurker. That worthy, in his hasty escape, loses a map and missive that the heroes find. Her expectation is that the players will add to the story some solution to the poison problem, then use the map to infiltrate an enemy fortress and rescue the ally indicated in the letter as being held there.
However, when the first arrows fly, a player challenges the GM's narrative control. Chips are bid and dice are rolled, and the player wins. The player says that the arrows have non-deadly tips that inject a poison with a soporific effect. The Lurkers capture the heroes and take them to wherever Ally X is being held. Nobody challenges that.
That scene being resolved, narrative control returns to the GM. The players have ended up where she wanted to get them, but under different circumstances -- and by their choice. It was, in narrative terms, a good strategic choice. If the players had chosen some other direction for the next scene, then the GM would have just had to run with it and see how to use it to advance the plot.
Last edited:
