Letting Players Narrate in the Game?

[ProfessorCirno]

One thing I've been considering is giving each player a "fortune" point at the start of every adventure that they can use in said adventure. The "fortune" point allows them to override me (though I'm still allowed to say "That isn't going to fly" if things get too out of control) in a nicely creative way, or suddenly add something new to the scene.

For example, say they're surrounded by guards and about to be sent to prison, where they will no doubt have a prison break because that's just how things work. One player doesn't want to do all that, and instead uses his fortune point and declares that a parade is passing through that they use as a cover to escape the guards. I say "Sounds good!" and bam, parade. Later, they're cornered by the emperor of the area, a gold dragon who is permanently in human shape due to a ritual that bound all the dragon clans together. They obviously want to get the hell out of dodge! They look through their equipment, think about things...and then one player announces that there's suddenly a series of explosions and the floor begins to shake and shift - saboteurs from the empire of the Red Family have hit the building, and it's begun collapsing!

Not only does this give me future plot hooks (Guess who's been connected to the saboteurs? Guess which emperor is a lot more willing to to turn to drastic measures in his war?), it gives them a chance to flex their creative muscles and paint a daring escape or victorious ambush in a way they think is most awesome. If they have no interest, they can merely choose not to spend the point.

 

[Mark Chance]

More player narrative is on my list of things to accomplish. This article at ars ludi contains some of what have become my thoughts on the matter.

I've also used player narrative statements in combat attached to small bonuses (+1 attack roll, +1 AC, et cetera). For example:

Player: I leap off the rock, short sword gripped in both hands, blade pointing downward, as I rain death down upon the hobgoblin.

Me: Excellent.

Player: I hit AC 19, and I'm using my narrative bonus for damage.

 

[Rel]

And I'd reply, "If I wanted to make up information about the markings, I'd be sitting where you are. I want to explore the world, not create it."

No interest whatsoever, as a player or referee.

It impresses me that you've taken a perfectly reasonable sentiment and phrased it in such a way that you're likely to alienate the GM and potentially other players at the table.

 

[The Shaman]

It impresses me that you've taken a perfectly reasonable sentiment and phrased it in such a way that you're likely to alienate the GM and potentially other players at the table.

If the GM is expecting me to make up details about the world as you've outlined, he's alienating me from the table.

What you find a "perfectly reasonable sentiment" takes me completely out of the game - it's the antithesis of what I'm looking for as a player in a roleplaying game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If the GM is expecting me to make up details about the world as you've outlined, he's alienating me from the table.

What you find a "perfectly reasonable sentiment" takes me completely out of the game - it's the antithesis of what I'm looking for as a player in a roleplaying game.

Yeah, pretty much.

If the person organising it wants to invite someone to that other kind of game (and yes, that kind of game is also perfectly legitimate in its own right, etc.) they should say so, up front. Knowing it's not a traditional role playing game would help when, you know, it happens that's not what's on offer.

Otherwise, The Shaman has the right of it. Not surprisingly. Unfortunately, "you must spread XP around. . . (etc.)"

 

[Rel]

If the GM is expecting me to make up details about the world as you've outlined, he's alienating me from the table.

What you find a "perfectly reasonable sentiment" takes me completely out of the game - it's the antithesis of what I'm looking for as a player in a roleplaying game.

What I was describing as a "perfectly reasonable sentiment" was YOUR feeling that you didn't want to play in a game where the players were able to contribute narrative to the development of the game world. I was simply commenting that the manner in which you were expressing it was very confrontational and unlikely to get a good reception at a table full of friends.

As to the context of my original post that you quoted, it was in response to the GM saying, "I'm not very good at this detail stuff." And my reply to him was offered as a solution to the problem and my express permission to put some of the narrative details back on me if he felt like it. I suppose that if he uses this technique on another player and they don't like it then it could be a problem. But I have every confidence that it'll be dealt with in a friendly manner if that should happen.

 

[The Shaman]

What I was describing as a "perfectly reasonable sentiment" was YOUR feeling that you didn't want to play in a game where the players were able to contribute narrative to the development of the game world.

You're right, I completely misunderstood what you were saying there.

I was simply commenting that the manner in which you were expressing it was very confrontational and unlikely to get a good reception at a table full of friends.

Rel, I expressed my preferences couched in a made-up quote to a non-existent group of gamers.

And while you may play exclusively with friends, I play with whoever, so I'm perhaps even more circumspect in choosing my words face-to-face, not less. Friends understand nuances which acquaintances may not.

 

[Barastrondo]

One of the things that makes it an interesting topic is that it's very much a sliding scale, but one where more people end up on one specific end instead of in the middle. The way I look at it, it's something like combat vs. non-combat, or dungeon vs. settlement; the slider bars can be set so that players can have some narrative creation ability without undercutting the feeling of exploration. I'd say I tend to set them at about 1 or 2 on a scale of 0-10; I like letting players create stuff, but there's an understanding that I'll do most of the heavy lifting for the purposes of fostering that sense of exploration.

(edit: A 1 or 2 for D&D purposes; obviously things get different with games with different assumed play goals.)

Yet, for folks like The Shaman, the only way to play is at 0. I think that's a very interesting approach myself, because the concept of exploration is absolute. I think I prefer a mix myself -- I like a bit of peanut butter with my chocolate, as long as the chocolate is dark like a GM's soul -- but yeah, I wholly understand why 0 is ideal for others.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I wanted to ask a few more questions about this game style.

If going from the get go, I'm assuming that the character's aren't starting off as blank slates, just that their background ins't necessarily important to the 'get go' so to speak.

In such a game, does the character's background come up in play? For exmaple, if playing a character and you then meet one of your relatives, how does that work out?

In Artesia, a comic, well after she's introduced, we meet one of her brothers. In Usagi Yojimbo, many many many issues into the series, with Tomoe, we meet her 'cousin'. Doesn't cause a jarring interruption or anything in the comics, but I was wondering how most role players handle these issues.

My character backgrounds tend to be sketchy, a quick summary of his situation and a couple of broadly drawn goals, and what background I do provide I fit to the referee's setting.

In Forge-y parlance, I prefer Develop-in-Play over Develop-at-Start. At the start of the game, I'm far less interested in who my character knows, where he's been, and what he's done than in who he'll meet, where he'll go, and what he's going to do, because all of that background is nothing more than something I scribbled on my character sheet as opposed to something I experience in actual play.

I don't want to write some sort of 'revenge plot' into my character's background; I want to avenge the death of my character's fellow adventurers last month, when they were killed by the baron's guards. I don't want to start with some mentor I created whole-cloth before the game began; I want to find a tutor and prove myself worthy of being his student during actual play. I don't want to start with a sword that's been in my family for generations; I want to pass on my character's sword and its legacy to my character's son or daughter, after my character has earned reknown with it over the course of the game we played.

I lost interest Star Wars the moment Darth Vader said, "I am your father." What was for me up to that instant a gripping adventure tale became a hackneyed soap opera.

This extends to how I prefer to engage the setting. I don't need adventure paths or narrative control to enjoy my character; just give me a world to explore and engage, to experience through my eyes of my character, and I'm good to go. I will change the world, but not by narrating it.Welcome to my Ignore list.

Mod Edit: Please, by all means, if you feel using the ignore list will improve your experience of EN World, use it. But don't go announcing it to the world - that's pretty crass and rude. ~Umbran

 

[The Shaman]

If going from the get go, I'm assuming that the character's aren't starting off as blank slates, just that their background ins't necessarily important to the 'get go' so to speak.

Yes, that's it.

Switching hats for a moment from player to referee, I tell players they are welcome to write as much or as little as they like for background, and that it's their tool for helping them to roleplaying their characters, but that I won't be tapping it for 'adventure seeds' or 'plot hooks' because there are no adventures or hooks as they are generally understood in roleplaying games.

In such a game, does the character's background come up in play? For exmaple, if playing a character and you then meet one of your relatives, how does that work out?

Again, speaking as referee, I prefer that this be kept to the barest minimum, and if it does happen, it'll be driven by the players, not me.

Say a player creates a brother for her character, and it comes about that the brother can provide some small but useful service to the adventurers. They are welcome to tap the brother as a resource if it's appropriate to what they're doing, say, delivering a message or acting as a lookout for an evening. What won't happen is discovering that the masked bandit plaguing the roads of the province is the brother, or that the brother holds the key to some mystery the adventurers want to solve.

The material I prepare is designed to represent the game-world-in-motion, and I prep initially with little foreknowledge of who the adventurers will be, only an understanding of genre archetypes. Once the game is underway, events are driven by the actions of the adventurers and the reactions of the setting. My goal is to emphasize shared experiences arising from actual play over fictional frontloading - again, develop-in-play versus develop-at-start.