Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Desdichado]

This surprised me a bit as I've not yet had a negative response to giving some narrative control to the players (in fact I would have to describe response as overwhelmingly positive). That said, I have a pretty limited sample as I don't really have time to DM outside of my regular group.

I will also say that I disagree that story is being put ahead of setting here as giving narrative control to players can still easily place setting first.

I'd do that, if a player asked me. Well, more specifically, I'd ask if he had any ranks on Knowledge (local) or the equivalent. If not, I'd let him try it untrained just because, hey, he is from around here. Then I'd make him make a check to see if he could find or remember or utilize any such shortcut. If he failed the check, well that's not an indictment of the idea, though.

I also fail to see how it's putting the story in front of setting, or rather, I'm not sure what is meant by that. As you point out yourself, it's actually a question of failing to make the GM's story paramount, so arguably it's the opposite of that claim.

But even if it is; so what? Story's pretty darn important to most gamer's enjoyment of the game, IME.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

This word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Here I am at work. It would be Friday and time for game night right now if it weren't for that draconian calendar.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Player: How far is it to the next town?
DM; Well, based on this draconian map about 20 miles or so.
Player: Thats too far, I do something impressive to get there in 10 miles.
DM: Sure. Gimmie a stealth roll.
Player: WOOT!! a 30!!
DM: time and space rolls over and takes a nap, you realize the town is only 10 miles down the road.

I know how to use draconian. A game reduced to rules represented by lines on paper is very hash on shared narrative. Also, your example is not how these scenarios work.

 

[Desdichado]

I know how to use draconian. A game reduced to rules represented by lines on paper is very hash on shared narrative. Also, your example is not how these scenarios work.

In other news, love the username.

 

[Hussar]

How about this:

Player: We need some supplies. How far to the nearest town?
DM: Based on your map, about 20 miles or so.
Player: Hmmm, maps often gloss over smaller settlements. I want to use my geography skill to see if I know of any smaller hamlets.
DM: Gimmie a geography roll.
Player: I got a 30.
DM: You know of an old fording place over the river that will cut about five miles off your trip and several hours. Since the weather has been dry lately, the ford should be clear.

Now, there was no ford marked on the map, and the weather point was previously unestablished. To me, this is a fairly mild form of Player Agency, or Narrative Control (depending on whose verbiage you want to use). The Player has initiated something over which his character has no possible way of initiating and the DM has effectively just gone with "Say Yes".

Really, that's what the whole "Say Yes" thing is - allowing player suggestions to override the DM while the DM does maintain a veto option. The DM did not have a ford on his map, nor did he establish the weather previously. These things have all been added at the Player's prompting.

Now a more clear example would be where the Player simply dictates the existence of the ford - that's pretty clear cut and I think we'd all agree that that's narrative control.

But, I think that a broader definition is still applicable here. If the DM is changing things at the Player's prompting, that's a mild form of Narrative Control. In the early example of finding a secret door, it would depend. Did the DM add the secret door based on the player's skill check? If yes, then that's Narrative Control.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Now a more clear example would be where the Player simply dictates the existence of the ford - that's pretty clear cut and I think we'd all agree that that's narrative control.

But, I think that a broader definition is still applicable here. If the DM is changing things at the Player's prompting, that's a mild form of Narrative Control. In the early example of finding a secret door, it would depend. Did the DM add the secret door based on the player's skill check? If yes, then that's Narrative Control.

I agree with this. That's narrative control, and you're correct when you say it's mild. This post is spot-on with how I view things. As always, play what you like

 

[molepunch]

I don't mean any disrespect to the above interesting views but there is no one right way to GM or play D&D. If people are having fun so be it. I think this debate just illustrates how important it is for the players and the GM to share the same style and appreciation of it.

 

[LostSoul]

Really, that's what the whole "Say Yes" thing is - allowing player suggestions to override the DM while the DM does maintain a veto option.

Not originally. It was about conflict resolution:

Dogs in the Vineyard, page 138:

Drive play toward conflict
Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes.
If nothing’s at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they’re doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.
Sooner or later — sooner, because your town’s pregnant with crisis — they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice.
Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes.​

So you "say yes" until another character tries to stop the PCs.

*

I tend to look at narrative control in terms of authority: the DM may say, sure, you know about this thing I haven't pre-planned; then again, he may say no, you don't. The authority to say yes or no lies with the DM. Though I don't know how often (or if) that's explicitly stated anywhere.

This blog entry covers my thoughts: The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play Game Design is about Structure

 

[Jhaelen]

Yeah... I keep wondering when John McClane and The Last Action Hero became the new archetypes for fantasy heroes?

Considering 'Die Hard' is from 1988, I'd say about twenty years ago

 

[pemerton]

This would seem appropriate to me, too. Roll some opposed checks / a skill challenge to see if you catch him. There are different methods, but I'm with you in the basic concept of using the mechanics to solve it.

OK, but now you have given me the crack into which I wedge my narrativist agenda! (Well, I'm not sure from your other posts on this thread exactly how you run this sort of issue in your game, so I'm not actually sure if I'm wedging you, agreeing with you, or just saying how I'd do it in my game.)

Suppose a player says "I take the shortest route through the town". If anything is actually at stake in the relevant episode of play, then the GM won't just condede this - s/he will call for a check (let's say a Streetwise check).

In [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]'s example, it is the GM who has had the NPC try and take the shortest route through town. But something is at stake - the PC's want to stop the NPC! So the GM has to make a Streetwise check for his/her NPC, just as a player would. And the players can also make a check, and then the results compared.

Or, in 4e which prefers to have only the players make rolls in this sort of situation (the GM gets no rolls in a skill challenge) then the NPC takes the shortest route and escapes only if the players fail the skill challenge.

So for me it's not about fudging the map, it's about the GM not having authority, any more than the players do, to stipulate that his/her NPC succeeds in some contested action without having to engage the action resolution mechanics.

As I think I posted upthread, or perhaps on the original thread, for me this is no different from the fact that the GM can't just stipulate that his/her NPCs strike killing blows. The action resolution mechanics must be engaged.

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

What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.

I too enjoy it in systems that are designed for and around it. Throwing it into games that aren't... I've got mixed feelings on.

As I've explained it above, a fair bit of what in this thread seems to be labelled as "player narrative control", I would be inclined to bring under the heading of "how do the action resolution mechanics handle the range of conflicts that the game may throw up?". If the game is going to make chases an important issue, it probably needs mechanics to resolve them. An example is the evasion mechanics in classic D&D - the players cannot escape an encounter just by specifying "We flee faster than the monsters in a straight line". The players can formulate this intention, but whether they realise it is determined via the mechanics. As I've set out earlier in this post, I think the chase of the NPC through the town should be handled the same sort of way.

The question of whether there is a town less than 20 miles away, or a ford, is a slightly different issue. This is closer to a genuine example of narrative control, I think, and the blog that LostSoul linked to becomes relevant:

This blog entry covers my thoughts: The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play Game Design is about Structure

In a scenario in which the aim is for the players to survive the 20 mile journey to town, then letting the players circumvent the challenge by positing a ford is coming close to letting the players define the parameters of their own challenge, which can lead to unsatisfying play. On the other hand, when the journey to town is a challenge, but surviving a 20 mile journey is neither here nor there, then finding and using the ford makes sense as part of the challenge resolution. I think this becomes about a GM making decisions about the parameters of the situation, making them clear to the players, and then adjudicating action resolution (including skill tests that "create new facts", like BW -wises, or the knowledge check that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggests upthread) in light of that.

First, if it comes down to DM decision it is in fact "Mother may I"... you are asking the DM whether something exists and it boils down to his decision.

I think there is a difference between clear, even hard(-ish), scene-framing and "mother may I" - one happens before action resolution begins, the other is an unsatisfactory form of action resolution.

I'm not saying I can clearly articulate this difference, but I think it is pretty noticeable in play, because in the first case you'll have enthusiastic players taking up your challenges, whereas in the second case you'll have grumpy players complaining about your railroading. (If I did try and articulate it, I would say that scene framing creates a "space" in which the players can pursue their goals via the action resolution mechanics, whereas "mother may I" is the players having to beg the GM to succeed in the pursuit of their goals.)

Using an example many of us may be familiar with... un-eratta'd Come and Get It. It was considered narrative control because there was no DM discretion or mechanical uncertainty in it's changing of the narrative. No save, no DM veto power, none of that. That IMO is an example of narrative control given over to players.

I would say that Come and Get It is especially mild narrative control, because its parameters and limitations are clearly specified and inherent with the mechanic.

The complaints I've seen about Come and Get It tend to relate to fictional positioning, and extrapolation of the story (ie the adequacy of fortune-in-the-middle action resolution mechanics) rather than player narrative control.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Yeah... I keep wondering when John McClane and The Last Action Hero became the new archetypes for fantasy heroes?

1979.

That year precedes the two movies you referenced but I mention it because it is, I believe, the very first published attempt to make D&D more closely resemble the source fiction, Doug Green's article "Rewarding Heroism In D&D", in Dragon Magazine #29. One of the rules he suggests is a sort of early Hero Point mechanic - a PC fighting alone for the good of the party, ie being a hero, receives a major boost to his combat capabilities (attack as a character of double level, take half damage, 20% boost to everything else).

One major difference is that Doug's "heroic act" is not under the control of the player. The player doesn't choose to spend a hero point to get the temporary stat increase, it happens whenever a PC is in the appropriate situation.

Later Hero Point mechanics, in games such as James Bond 007 and Mutants & Masterminds, are under the player's control. They can be used to boost a PC's capabilities briefly, simulating action movie stunts and comic book heroes suddenly accessing a new power (which they never use again in subsequent issues), and even alter, or, it might be more correct to say determine, or pin down, details completely outside the PC's control. The example in James Bond 007 is of the player spending a hero point to have a gold brick happen to be lying nearby, which he can use as a makeshift club to thwack Oddjob.

Narrative control points often seem to be associated with games that are more interested in simulating adventure fiction than D&D has historically been. (As far as I'm aware, the only fiction-sim rules in D&D are 4e's minions and, arguably, the saving throw mechanic.) It's worth considering why this should be. Adventure fiction is replete with lucky, and unlucky, coincidences that get the hero out of, and into, peril. One obvious way to go is to allow the player to determine when he gets a lucky coincidence, while the GM determines the unlucky ones. This makes the fiction-sim also work as a game, in which the player only has a limited number of 'lucky coincidence' points. It's also beneficial because it gives the player more agency, and in general people like to have agency. Though I note that upthread several people have expressed a dislike of this because it breaks immersion.

Another way to go would be to have the lucky and unlucky coincidences controlled by the system, presumably by dice roll. Perhaps something pretty close to the critical hit/fumble idea, where a 1 or a 20 mean something extraordinary happens. However in the fiction, the coincidences do seem to be a lot less random than this. That could also conceivably be built in, by using some measure of how much peril the PC is currently in. If he's in no peril at all, then it's very likely something bad, or at least adventure-inducing, will occur. If he's in a lot, then he's almost certain to get a lucky break. And so the endless roller coaster continues.