Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

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.

I understand that. My point is, the player is still the one deciding where that line is drawn and if a player decides that line is drawn over here (suggesting that the character knows an alleyway) or over there (asking the DM if the character knows the alleyway), it's still the player's decision.

Player agency is not separated from character agency.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I think agency is just a particular type of narrative control. You find narrative control distributed differently around the table depending on the rpg, and sometimes group, you're looking at.

As I stated upthread, it's nonsensical to define narrative control as total control, because then no one at the table (not even the DM) possesses it! Not even the DM can tell me without cause that my human is a dwarf. He can't tell me that my mage memorized fireball instead of divination this morning. He needs a reason to deny my fighter an attack roll.

IMO, this is because the rules create a framework for shared reality, and a DM who violates those boundaries without the consent of his players will find himself with justifiably irate players. If you step outside the framework set by the rules without approval from the participants you're playing cowboys and indians in the back yard, not a role playing game.

Players certainly have less narrative control in most games than the DM. Since the DM acts as a referee, that makes sense. However, even though 1 is both less than 2 and less than infinity, you would be in error assuming that this implies that 2 equals infinity:

1 < 2 && 1 < infinity
2 =/= infinity

The DM, players, and even dice all share narrative control of the game. I believe that this is a big part of the reason that railroading has such a bad reputation; without consent from the players, a railroading DM oversteps the limits placed on his share of narrative control and steals that which belongs to the players. It's also why railroads work for some groups; those players consent to surrendering a portion of their control to the DM in exchange for a better experience (from their perspective). That it works for some and not for others isn't really relevant beyond that some players are willing to surrender more narrative control than others.

It's similar in some respects to the government of certain republics. The DM is akin to the president. He wields great authority, but not without limits. Players are like congressmen, guiding the game in the direction they'd like to see it go. Both the president and the congress are granted different political powers by law (the rules).

Stories abound of players who ignored the Dungeon of the Week in order to explore something the DM never anticipated. You can't tell me that that isn't a significant degree of control in regard to the narrative. The DM planned for this week's story to be about exploring the dungeon. Instead, the players made it about exploring the intricacies of wenching. The story completely changed, not because of the DM but rather the players! The DM, of course, still acts in his role as guide for the narrative of the wenching story, but this new narrative is nothing like what he intended.

Granted, in the above example, it may be the DM who feels slighted. After all, he presumably spent time and effort preparing the Dungeon of the Week for the players but now that material is useless and he's being forced to improvise. Other groups, including my own, love this sort of thing. Not wenching, but rather taking the game completely off the track. Some of our best sessions were 99% improvised.

All narrative control in rpgs is a matter of degrees. What degree that control is shared, is admittedly a matter of personal preference. However, assuming that the DM is the only one in control is a mistake. If that were the case, the DM would be telling the "players" story rather than arbitrating a game.

 

[Mort]

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.

The character always acts through the player - don't think that's in any dispute.

The question is is the player directly setting/influencing the setting (some games have mechanics for this directly and most have at at the very least an indirect way of accomplishing this) or is the player merely navigating the character through the setting with skills/abilities strictly available through the character only. Nagol is saying he prefers the later (a position that seems well represented, if this thread and others is any indication).

 

[Nagol]

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.

That and I draw a line between what the character can do and what I can do. I prefer to stay on the character side of that line. That means I avoid games that place me in the character-advocate role where I am modifying the universe outside of my character's choices.

The original version of Come and Get it, for example, affected enemies non-sensically unless I, the player, provided narrative reason for their (often) irrational actions.

A non D&D example would be the playing of a Whimsy Card during play, or the Dogs in the Vineyard resolution system.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

The character always acts through the player - don't think that's in any dispute.

The question is is the player directly setting/influencing the setting (some games have mechanics for this directly and most have at at the very least an indirect way of accomplishing this) or is the player merely navigating the character through the setting with skills/abilities strictly available through the character only. Nagol is saying he prefers the later (a position that seems well represented, if this thread and others is any indication).

I understand that. What I'm saying is that you can't split player/character agency. The character always acts through the player. Even the abilities/skills are determined by the player and DM. So why is it any different if the player decides to expand those abilities such as in the example? It maybe a different playstyle, I understand that, but it isn't changing anything in regards to agency.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

The DM, players, and even dice all share narrative control of the game. I believe that this is a big part of the reason that railroading has such a bad reputation; without consent from the players, a railroading DM oversteps the limits placed on his share of narrative control and steals that which belongs to the players. It's also why railroads work for some groups; those players consent to surrendering a portion of their control to the DM in exchange for a better experience (from their perspective). That it works for some and not for others isn't really relevant beyond that some players are willing to surrender more narrative control than others.

<snip>

If the characters wander off away from assigned place A into the great unknown, so be it. If the characters approach or avoid an obstacle, so be it. That is under the character's control.

When I hear "player narrative control" I hear "player controlling items and events outside of his assigned character". I agree, players should have complete control over their their characters and the actions performed by them. What I don't like is the expectation I will affect something in the universe that the character is not/cannot affect.

 

[Mort]

I understand that. What I'm saying is that you can't split player/character agency. The character always acts through the player. Even the abilities/skills are determined by the player and DM. So why is it any different if the player decides to expand those abilities such as in the example? It maybe a different playstyle, I understand that, but it isn't changing anything in regards to agency.

The character always acts through the player, but the player might not always act through the character - that is the distinction.

If I, as the player, use a fate point to place a cart in front of the villain to slow him down, the character has nothing to do with this. It is the player exerting direct narrative control over the setting and it is this that some players have a dislike of.

I was confused for a minute because Nagol was using the term "player agency" but I think I get it now.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

The character always acts through the player, but the player might not always act through the character - that is the distinction.

If I, as the player, use a fate point to place a cart in front of the villain to slow him down, the character has nothing to do with this. It is the player exerting direct narrative control over the setting and it is this that some players have a dislike of.

I was confused for a minute because Nagol was using the term "player agency" but I think I get it now.

That example makes more sense. Thanks. With this clarification, the OG example is not player agency because the character is acting through the player but if the player was to suggest that a cart be placed in front of the villain than that would be. Is that correct?

 

[Imaro]

When I hear "player narrative control" I hear "player controlling items and events outside of his assigned character"...

IME this is how most "narrative based" games define it as well. I feel like some of the definitions of narrative control used in this thread are so broad that they are effectively blurring the line of where non-narrative control ends and narrative control begins. IMO, asking the DM if something exists, whether it does or doesn't since you won't know, is not narrative control but instead getting clarification/confirmaton from the DM on whether something does or does not exist.

I mean how is this any different from a player asking if a secret door is in a room and the DM then telling him/her to roll a Perception check? Now I wouldn't call this narrative control since the player isn't controlling anything, the DM is. Did the door exsist before the PC asked to search for it? Only the DM knows. Contrast this with games like the FATE system and a player knows he has created something wholecloth that was not there before he stated it through something other than the actions of his character.

 

[Mort]

That example makes more sense. Thanks. With this clarification, the OG example is not player agency because the character is acting through the player but if the player was to suggest that a cart be placed in front of the villain than that would be. Is that correct?

Well the Original example might be player agency (and was intended to be a clear, if small, example of such) the player was "creating" a route or shortcut where none existed before (at least in the mind and notes of the DM. You can easily argue it "always" existed in the actual setting). The question is: is it really new? is the player just "finding" vs. creating?

Look at the kobayashi maru discussion earlier in the thread. I think this is a clear example of handling (and even perceiving) the situation in different ways. I think different approaches that fit people's playstyles have really been showcased in this thread!