Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[JamesonCourage]

No, I didn't. I said which part of setting trumps another after I gave an example of how setting is more than a map. It also, does not break internal consistency.

You said:

The map is one part of setting, not setting as a whole. The tone and ability for characters to be heroic is also setting. So which element of setting trumps another?

I said: "the map." I answered your question, which is directly above this sentence.

I know that. It's implied but explicitly stating it makes your argument arbitrary. How is anybody going to reply when you just keep repeating your mantra while making your points? It's pretty futile when you just clam up and keep chanting "my taste, my taste, my taste" in response to criticism of your points.

So, by me expressing my opinion, and me saying, "I understand you like something different, so play that", I'm participating in a futile conversation? No, that's not how I see it. I see that as an exchange of ideas and opinions. That's healthy conversation. You don't need to argue to have a productive conversation.

Not at all. There is nothing unheroic about hitting armour (DR) or getting parried. "You miss, next" is very unheroic however.

Many people now interpret AC as being parried or hitting armor. This is your interpretation, and that's fine, but I really, really disagree with your assessment of what constitutes "unheroic". Your mileage has varied.

Okay player. Perhaps if you want to have a conservation you should stop opting out every other point. It really is quite confusing.

Haha Okay, what have I avoided?

It doesn't have to be the only way. It's the way that a player has suggested. Your argument is about boxing the player into paths you have predetermined.

When did I say this, or even imply it? Because I'm pretty sure I can point out where I'd let them look into it, or come up with other methods. Heck, I even said in this thread how I'd probably handle it.

Perhaps you are drawing a blank because this is a strawman argument designed to discredit the "hero's are not incompetent" argument. We are not talking about a setback. We are talking about a player with a suggestion that they evidently think will be fun and allow their character to contribute. Boxing them in to distinct paths of failure is robbing them of that ability.

Why is it boxing them into paths of failure? Why can't they succeed in a different manner, or at a different time? Why can't they fail?

It's not a strawman. I'm saying that it's okay to fail as a hero. I'm saying that it's normal to fail as a hero. I think that your argument of "if the player thinks up a way to catch the villain, he should get to" is going against the trope of heroes losing or suffering setbacks. I think you're painting it in a very black or white, limited way, and I don't think it should be.

But that's just my opinion. It's my preference, and I can see where you're coming from. As always, play what you like

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

You said:

I said: "the map." I answered your question, which is directly above this sentence.

I'll have to draw a line under that because I'll just be repeating myself.

So, by me expressing my opinion, and me saying, "I understand you like something different, so play that", I'm participating in a futile conversation? No, that's not how I see it. I see that as an exchange of ideas and opinions. That's healthy conversation. You don't need to argue to have a productive conversation.

Do not make critical assessments if you're not trying to argue a point.

Many people now interpret AC as being parried or hitting armor. This is your interpretation, and that's fine, but I really, really disagree with your assessment of what constitutes "unheroic". Your mileage has varied.

This is an example of a critical statement which is then contradicted by another strawman. Since you're not arguing a point, I won't clarify your assumptions.

[/QUOTE]Haha Okay, what have I avoided?[/QUOTE]

Any form of response. No matter what I say in reply, you will just keep chanting "my taste".

When did I say this, or even imply it? Because I'm pretty sure I can point out where I'd let them look into it, or come up with other methods. Heck, I even said in this thread how I'd probably handle it.

When you said that you had to keep "internal consistency" by referencing a predetermined map.

Why is it boxing them into paths of failure? Why can't they succeed in a different manner, or at a different time? Why can't they fail?

I'll draw a line under this one as well, since I'll just be repeating myself.

It's not a strawman.

Yes it is.

 

[Hussar]

The player did not alter the reality. The player examined the reality through his character and chose a goal that, given his skills, location, and purpose, should be accomplishable.
(bold mine)
That is character agency.

Of course the player altered reality. Was there an option to change the computer program before the player came up with the plan? If there wasn't, then the player has just changed reality - he added something that wasn't there previously. See, you added in the point, "should be accomplishable". According to whom? The DM typically. So, the DM is adding elements to the game world that weren't there before to accommodate a request from the player that is reasonable. That's narrative control by definition.

If the option was there beforehand, then fine, it's not narrative control, it's character agency. However, adding the option is not character agency. The character cannot add that option. Only the DM can add that option (or sometimes the player, depending on the system). IOW, the option is being added, distinct from any actions that character could possibly take. And the reason this option is being added is because of the suggestions of the player. Again, that's narrative control.

Basically, we're down to dueling definitions. If "narrative control" is only when players outright contradict existing, known reality, then of course it would be bad because it's inconsistent. However, as has been shown in this thread, most people do not define "narrative control" in such an extreme fashion.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Any form of response. No matter what I say in reply, you will just keep chanting "my taste".

I really don't think you're being anywhere near as clear as you think you are. At any rate, I'm not here to argue. I've avoided arguing "no, it's not a strawman" because that won't help a productive dialogue, which is what I've indicated I want this to remain in this thread (it's one of the first things I said). So, if you want the last word, go ahead and take it. I don't want to derail this thread or argue with you, and I don't feel like you're trying to have a discussion.

You're not wrong to have your preferences, and I'm glad you get to have fun in the game. As always, play what you like

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I really don't think you're being anywhere near as clear as you think you are.

An appeal to your taste does not strengthen what you are saying. All it does it say, there's nothing much you can say because I'm set in my tastes. That makes it nigh impossible to address your criticisms because you're unwilling to accept anything else under the pretense of personal taste.

It's double hard when you misrepresent me by asserting what I meant instead of taking my word for it.

Clear enough?

 

[chaochou]

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 topic of giving narrative control to players is always interesting.

My take on it, though, is this example is not about narrative control. I don't recognise a streetwise roll to get ahead of a fleeing villain as controlling the narrative. It just lets me do what a streetwise roll might reasonably let me do.

If it went like this, as an example, I would call it as giving players narrative control:

GM: The ruffian bolts off down the street
Player: Okay, how about he drops his hat?
Other players: Hmm, or tears his cloak? Or drops a bit of parchment? A key?
GM: Actually parchment might be cool...
Player A: Right, so he drops a bit of parchment.
GM: Yeah, which is caught on the breeze and floats up to land on the roof of the Temple of Very Bad Things.
Player A: Awesome. Anyone know Gust of Wind?

And so on. The players introduce a new idea into game (fleeing villain drops something). The GM likes it. The GM twists that idea. The players like it. So, the 'narrative' has changed from 'chase the villain' to something else with everyone's agreement.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree, the heroism comes from the PCs actions, like having the foresight to cut off the bad guy at the pass.

It limits their ability to be heroic because they are boxed into being incompetent.

Giving the PCs the ability to catch a bad guy is hardly lowering any metaphysical bar.

I fail to see how a PC becomes incompetent due to a lack of an ability that allows him/her to create setting reality on the fly.

I suppose a fighter is incompetent unless he/she is unable to toss a fireball when it would be really helpful?

PC competence is demonstrated by using the abilities and resources at hand as effectively as possible.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I fail to see how a PC becomes incompetent due to a lack of an ability that allows him/her to create setting reality on the fly.

I suppose a fighter is incompetent unless he/she is unable to toss a fireball when it would be really helpful?

PC competence is demonstrated by using the abilities and resources at hand as effectively as possible.

The PC isn't creating setting reality. The player and DM are, which is how RPGs work.

Yeah and I suppose it's incompetent for a wizard not to be able to wield a sword with efficiency...oh wait.

Yeah and being able to successfully cut somebody off at the pass is a reasonable ability to be utilized.

 

[Nagol]

The PC isn't creating setting reality. The player and DM are, which is how RPGs work.

Yeah and I suppose it's incompetent for a wizard not to be able to wield a sword with efficiency...oh wait.

Yeah and being able to successfully cut somebody off at the pass is a reasonable ability to be utilized.

Only if such a pass and a route more direct but less travelled to it exist. Otherwise, it is pretty unreasonable.

 

[Guest 85555]

Only if such a pass and a route more direct but less travelled to it exist. Otherwise, it is pretty unreasonable.

For me one of the key roles of the GM is determining whether such things exist when players ask based on his knowledge of the location and his common sense. It is certainly a reasonable request on the part of the player, and I think a short cut is likely to exist unless there is a reason it shouldn't. But for me the key thing that keeps this example outside the realm of narrative control is whether the GM has final or whether it boils down to the roll. Nothing wrong with either approach but I prefer the first option where the GM decides first if there is in fact a shortcut and the skill roll decides how well the pc can act on that.