Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Please stop telling me I'm lying. As I just said, I find it trivial to split player agency from character agency.

You're not giving examples of how you are splitting yourself from your character and how you (the player) are not influencing the character. It's you (the player) making the decisions the whole time. The character only exists in your head.

If you decide to ask the DM, that's not character agency, that's you (the player) asking for an outside opinion just like it would be you (the player) suggesting the character know a shortcut to the DM.

There is no split between character and player here.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Me personally, it all comes down to a simple question as DM. "What'll be more fun... catching and encountering the BBEG on the street or having him escape only to have to find him later?" Map be damned, skill check be damned. There are any number of reasons to explain or justify why the PCs could catch or could not catch the villain... and both they and I could rattle off dozens of reasons for either scenario. Thus it all comes down to what would be more dramatically interesting, and that's why I as DM-with-full-plot-in-mind can make the judgement call whether an encounter in the street would make sense or be interesting.

Now for this specific instance that the OP suggested... I'd probably say that because the PC had a specific game element that had been established previously (that he was intimately familiar with the city-- which might mean it was a part of the character background he had created or something)... I'd let him make a role simply because he took the time to create this game element as part of his character in the first place, and thus it would be more dramatically interesting for the player to know that his PC is really just that damn good when it comes to knowing the city by the back of his hand. And if I (as DM) are not going to reward him for actually establishing something like this beforehand... then what possible reason would players have to ever detail their histories for me? I'm basically telling them that I want backgrounds because that's the way character creation is supposed to happen... but don't expect them to actually have any meaningful impact on the game. Not much of an incentive there to me.

 

[Mort]

I can point to a lot of lotteries like that, but they are all out of business now since the laws got tighened up! Typically they worked in reverse -- see these numbers they won't come up!

Sure, the DM can be influenced, negotiated with, and otherwise influenced -- that's using player agency in a less formal manner.

You are engaged in affecting the world in a way your character (despite the number of prayers he may utter) cannot.

Wait a minute, now I'm confused.

If the player is actually affecting/influencing the setting (not the character the player) how is that not narrative control? We've already discussed the DM filter - in which I'll buy your player agency argument (the player is not exerting direct control but depending on the DM, though again in some circumstances , at least to me, it makes little actual difference).

But if the player in some way directly exerts control over the setting (the DM let him directly place a cart in the villains way etc.) he has some narrative control.

What am I missing here?

edit: ok re-reading your explanation, I think I get it. Player agency is another word for narrative control (yes?) but you prefer character agency - which is acting solely through the actions the characer not the player has control over.

 

[Nagol]

You're not giving examples of how you are splitting yourself from your character and how you (the player) are not influencing the character. It's you (the player) making the decisions the whole time. The character only exists in your head.

If you decide to ask the DM, that's not character agency, that's you (the player) asking for an outside opinion just like it would be the player suggesting the character know a shortcut to the DM.

There is no split between character and player here.

Agency means 'capacity to act'. The first word is key. It indicates where the action is emanating from.

If I limit those actions to the scope of activity that lies in the character's purview then the character is the one acting and the scene is resolved with character agency. For example, running down an alleyway I know will get me closer to my target. For the player to make these choices sometimes requires additional information from regarding the scene. Asking if the character has particular knowledge is just asking for such a clarification. It does not commit the character to action and offers no effect on the game world other than resolving an uncertainty. How the the one in control of the scene chooses the answer is immaterial to me. It could be written down, it could be probability based, it could be at his whim.

If I do not limit those actions in such a way then I'm acting as a player. Some games have formal rules for such actions. In those systems, I am free to tell the GM that I know a shortcut and am gaining on the target. This may cost a player resource like a token, card play, or may grant the GM the ability to add a complication as he wishes depending on the game.

In some cases, I may be trying player agency less formally i.e. through negotiation ("Hey DM, wouldn't it be really neat if we caught him this way and got onto the main plot tonight?"), bribery ("Gee, I'm getting a bit hungry, what do you say I order us a pizza as soon as we catch this guy!", or extortion ("It'd be a shame a SHAME I say if that coke bottle were to tip aspill all over your cards!")

Regardless of formality or informality, I prefer to resolve situations within character agency.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Agency means 'capacity to act'. The first word is key. It indicates where the action is emanating from...

You (the player) are taking the action in both scenarios. You (the player) made a decision to limit your scope and ask the DM just like You (the player) might not limit your scope and decide that the character knows the alleyway.

The character simply can not act with out the player. You can't separate the characters ability to act from the players. The character doesn't exist with out the players capacity to act.

Your idea of player agency is just social interaction. If I say to Sarah next to me "hey if you save my character then you can have the last M&M" that's not player agency that's me goofing off with the group.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No you can't. You can't make a cognitive decision with out the player influencing the character. The character exists in the player's mind, you can't split the two. So it's okay if a character can conceive it...like being a local/streetwise dude who knows the alleyways?

If this were true, it would be impossible to act as a DM, as it is normally conceived. Ergo, I find holes in the argument.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

If this were true, it would be impossible to act as a DM, as it is normally conceived. Ergo, I find holes in the argument.

It's not impossible to be a DM. It makes it impossible to be a dictator at the game table however.

 

[Nagol]

You (the player) are taking the action in both scenarios. You (the player) made a decision that to limit your scope and ask the DM just like You (the player) might no limit your scope and decide that the character knows the alleyway.

The character simply can not act with out the player. You can't not separate the characters ability to act from the players. The character doesn't exist with out the players capacity to act.

Your idea of player agency is just social interaction.

No. I as player am asking for clarity over an unresolved item.

Then I as player decide whether or not to act using character agency.

Then I as player decide whether or not to act using player agency.

Player agency is certainly not just social interaction, but I've given about as clear a description of the difference as I care to.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

No. I as player am asking for clarity over an unresolved item.

Then I as player decide whether or not to act using character agency.

Then I as player decide whether or not to act using player agency.

Player agency is certainly not just social interaction, but I've given about as clear a description of the difference as I care to.

Right, so in all scenarios You (the player) make the decisions and the character does not act until You (the player) have decided.

So the character's capacity to act is still directly tied to You (the player)'s capacity to act.

 

[Guest 85555]

Right, so in all scenarios You (the player) make the decisions and the character does not act until You (the player) have decided.

So the character's capacity to act is still directly tied to You (the player)'s capacity to act.

I think all he is saying is he avoids metagaming by drawing a line between player knowledge and character knowledge. No one seriously believes the character is independant of the player. But you can place boundaries around the two for the purposes of playing the game through the eyes of your character.