Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Mort]

If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group). Mort said:

To me, when he indicates "changing the reality of the game world as he planned it" and he has a drawn up map of the city with which he could reliably use up to this point as a part of the setting, changing it would be changing the setting (which is part of internal consistency, much the same way I'd consider "established fiction" to be).

You're not actualy expecting me to remember something from 10 pages ago are you?

I suppose when writing "changing the reality of the game world" I had meant from an "In my head and on my map" perspective - quite likely the world has not changed for the players because they have not yet experienced it.

Now if they had (they had adventured in this exact area before, maybe even mapped it) it could potentially be more jarring.

Not for my group though 1) they are quite laid back and don't mind a changing landscape (they are not big on immersion and actually find it tedious - a taste I have addapted to in DMing for them for years) 2) They're actually all about exploring new iterations of something they thought they knew (which is what they would take this as).

 

[Imaro]

Honestly, it was a 10 second example (not directly pulled from a game,(though I've certainly seen variations of it) and at the time of posting I hadn't realy thought much about whether the fiction itself was established.

Obviously the fiction being not established makes things easier to change - as whether the villain is taking "the fastest" route is still an open question.

That said, the players don't see my full map assuming I've even drawn one. I'm perfectly willing to change things if the group gives me a better option than the one I have in mind.

Emphasis mine... see this is why I call it "Mother May I" instead of real narrative control. He's willing to change it if the group gives him something he deems better... otherwise if he doesn't think it's better he keeps it the same. At no point do the players have real control over the narrative in that situation, the DM maintains it.

 

[Mort]

Emphasis mine... see this is why I call it "Mother May I" instead of real narrative control. He's willing to change it if the group gives him something he deems better... otherwise if he doesn't think it's better he keeps it the same. At no point do the players have real control over the narrative in that situation, the DM maintains it.

From a strict sense yes. Since the DM filter is in place it's not technicaly player narrative control - at least in this instance. Though I still think there are degrees here, even entertaining the thought of a player changing the narrative without his character as a filter seems to get some people's gander up(and as this is a taste issue, there's nothing actually wrong with that).

I think that's going to be the situation in most D&D settings though as there are no real mechanics for players to truly (no DM filter) take control of the narrative from the DM. That's more reserved for games with fate points and the like (though even there the DM filter usually exists)

 

[JamesonCourage]

You're not actualy expecting me to remember something from 10 pages ago are you?

I suppose when writing "changing the reality of the game world" I had meant from an "In my head and on my map" perspective - quite likely the world has not changed for the players because they have not yet experienced it.

Now if they had (they had adventured in this exact area before, maybe even mapped it) it could potentially be more jarring.

Not for my group though 1) they are quite laid back and don't mind a changing landscape (they are not big on immersion and actually find it tedious - a taste I have addapted to in DMing for them for years) 2) They're actually all about exploring new iterations of something they thought they knew (which is what they would take this as).

I can't XP, but this post all makes sense to me. It is about tastes, and I don't think it's wrong to play the way your group does. And sorry if I put you on the spot with the OP, I didn't know it wasn't so literal or set. I'll work from a more "theoretical" point of view from now on. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Honestly, it was a 10 second example

I tried to give you sympathy XP for pouring over the entrails of your 10 second example, but apparently can't yet.

If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group).

<snip>

If I have a map as GM, it's now set in the setting. I will not be changing it for convenience's sake.

That said, the players don't see my full map assuming I've even drawn one. I'm perfectly willing to change things if the group gives me a better option than the one I have in mind.

My approach is much closer to Mort's. I tend to do the same with NPC motivations, as per this quote from Paul Czege:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

Of course, once it's been accepted by everyone at the table as part of the shared fiction, then it is settled unless it is somehow unsettled by agreement (a character within the fiction does something to change things in the fiction, or something goes wrong at the table and we all agree to a retcon, or whatever).

I think that's going to be the situation in most D&D settings though as there are no real mechanics for players to truly (no DM filter) take control of the narrative from the DM.

This comment isn't intended as contradiction, but reflection and elaboration. Arguably in D&D, if the players - by application of the action resolution mechanics for their PCs - reduce a monster or NPC to zero hit points, then the GM is obliged to narrate that the NPC or monster is dead.

And a similar example came up in my game a couple of months ago with a skill challenge. After this episode, the players had won a skill challenge, which in effect meant that their PCs had taunted an enemy - whom they had run into at a formal dinner and were therefore precluded from confronting directly - into attacking them, and therefore betraying his true colours in front of all the assembled NPC worthies. In a subsequent session, I narrated some conduct by some NPC which only made sense if the allegiance of the PC's enemy had remained ambiguous after the skill challenge. One of my players reminded me of the skill challenge success, and that the success meant that the true colours of the enemy had been exposed. I accepted the corerection and redescribed the situation appropriately.

I don't know where you (or others) put this on the spectrum of players' narrative control, but it felt like it at the time (at least to me as GM)!

that was presumptuous of me. I apologize.

Thanks, though there's no need to apologise! It's an internet forum - everyone's doing their best to work out what the hell these other strangers are banging on about!

I'm near-positive that after your initial post saying you'd use mechanics to resolve this, I quoted you and posted that I agree. Why you assume I wouldn't use mechanics to resolve this is still exceptionally unclear to me.

Well, in the reply to that post I did say that I was going to use your agreement to wedge you, but then qualified (in paranetheses) that I wasn't entirely sure how you would handle it, and so maybe wasn't wedging you but agreeing with you.

I think that in a subsequent post you said that autowin for the NPC was OK, and to me autowin implied "no mechanics, just GM fiat".

One interesting point in the neighbourhood is this: you have said that you would have the NPC do a Streetwise (or whatever) check, and if successful take the shortest route. The players could do the same for their PCs, and then if they succeeded too the chase would be on.

So each check is resolved not as part of a conflict, but as an independent factor in the situation. I personally prefer the BW way of doing it, which is that if the players win the oppposed check then the NPC failed - and that failure can be narrated in various ways that don't have to immediately reflect the PCs agency in the gameworld (for example, losing the opposed check could mean the NPC gets stuck in a street fair, even though the players winning their check for their PCs does not correspond to the PCs somehow setting up a street fair). Skill challenges are meant to be handled the same way in 4e (which is pretty obvious, I think, from the structure of the mechanics, and becomes obvious if not expressly acknowledged in the example of play in the Rules Compendium). When the PCs fail on a check, the GM is free to narrate some sort of complication or adversity which isn't necessarily, within the gameworld, caused by the PC failing at something (eg a player failing a diplomacy check could mean that, although the PC was very coureous etc, as s/he was speaking a bird flew overhead and crapped on the NPC's cloak, irritating the NPC and thus negating the PC's attempt to influence him/her through no fault of the PC's).

But this isn't a point about narrative control by players, but rather the introduction of a metagame element into action resolution.

 

[Hussar]

Well, in the reply to that post I did say that I was going to use your agreement to wedge you, but then qualified (in paranetheses) that I wasn't entirely sure how you would handle it, and so maybe wasn't wedging you but agreeing with you.

Dude, stop with the atomic wedgies.

-------

Honestly, on a totally personal note, I think that granting limited narrative control (even to the point of dictating to the GM/DM) is a good thing.

The one thing players almost always have in common is that their character is the most important thing in the game to that player. Setting, story, exploration, whatever, all comes second to that player's character. And rightly so. A character is the only thing in a game that the player actually "owns". It's the only thing the player has any direct control over and, by extention, the DM isn't supposed to put his grubby paws all over.

Narrative control is a way to get players to engage in the setting. By allowing, in certain circumstance, the player to directly say to the group, "This is what I think will make a better game" and enforcing that through the mechanics, you make every player at the table responsible for the game. Without any narrative control, the quality of the game rests almost entirely on the shoulders of the DM. No matter how good (or bad) the players are, if the DM isn't good, the game is never going to be good.

But, if you let the players have a small amount of direct influence, then everyone at the table can take some part in making the game better. And, it checks and balances across the group. If one player introduces something the rest of the group doesn't like, the rest of the group can use their limited narrative control resources to over rule that idea. Again, the DM doesn't have to step in at all.

The pyramid model of RPG's, where you have the DM at the top and the players underneath does not give the best results, IMNSHO. It is better to allow everyone at the table to be at least partially, directly responsible for the quality of the game.

 

[chaochou]

But, if you let the players have a small amount of direct influence, then everyone at the table can take some part in making the game better. And, it checks and balances across the group. If one player introduces something the rest of the group doesn't like, the rest of the group can use their limited narrative control resources to over rule that idea. Again, the DM doesn't have to step in at all.

I agree with this, and want to highlight that the idea of checks and balances is very important.

When you give players narrative control you move away from GM authoirity - but not to player authority. You end up with play based on consensus, where everyone at the table (including the GM) has to agree to a suggestion for it to be incorporated into the fiction.

In my experience, the implications of this kind of gaming by concensus do not receive enough attention.

It does not, for example, lead to a situation where players automatically try to narrate away in-game challenges. Why? Because players want those challenges. How could you possibly claim as a player to want a challenge and then narrate it away the moment you get the chance?

In my experience, players with narration rights tend to talk themselves into more trouble, not less. Just trouble of their choosing, which interests them, which will help define their character.

Also, it does not allow players to 'mess up' the GMs carefully planned ideas. Why? Because if you GM in this style you don't tend to have carefully planned ideas. You don't tend to have a detailed map of the city.

You have a loose framework of characters and their motivations, and some tense situations in which the PCs have a stake. GM-ing in this style feels like being a player - you have to react, to adapt, to take new ideas and changes to the landscape on board and roll with them, to be just as willing as the players to discover things you didn't know about the gameworld. You sit down with ideas, but you create the world at the table with the players.

So it has some real strengths.

In fairness, it has some weaknesses to. Play can begin to feel directionless - the GM has less authority to keep 'the story' going, so if the players aren't careful in what they create you can suddenly find yourself with 10 'story arcs' none of which are being resolved. Games can feel like a never-ending soap opera rather than a movie.

It also relies heavily on players engaging with it. Quiet players, players who want to take a back seat, who won't put something out there - they can be difficult to deal with if they also have narration rights. As a playstyle it assumes pro-activeness on the part of players.

Tying into that, in my experience, you need players who make characters with weaknesses. Characters with beliefs that can be threatened, problems to be exploited, friendships to be tested - all that stuff. Reactive players, who don't provide such hooks, lead to difficult games.

This turned into a longer post than expected, but I guess - in answer to the OPs question... giving players narrative control is as good as the players make it.

 

[Guest 85555]

To Hussar's point, giving players real narrative control can be good for some people, but I don't think it is universally better than a more restricted approach. It ultimately boils down to preference and this is specific issue is one that people on both sides feel very passionately about.

 

[Nagol]

I agree with this, and want to highlight that the idea of checks and balances is very important.

When you give players narrative control you move away from GM authoirity - but not to player authority. You end up with play based on consensus, where everyone at the table (including the GM) has to agree to a suggestion for it to be incorporated into the fiction.

In my experience, the implications of this kind of gaming by concensus do not receive enough attention.

It does not, for example, lead to a situation where players automatically try to narrate away in-game challenges. Why? Because players want those challenges. How could you possibly claim as a player to want a challenge and then narrate it away the moment you get the chance?

I've seen it happen -- both on the player-side and DM side, really. It's like a Mary Sue syndrome. There's this really bad threat, see? But it evaporates and we win! Yay!

In my experience, players with narration rights tend to talk themselves into more trouble, not less. Just trouble of their choosing, which interests them, which will help define their character.

The same happens with strong proactive players in a typical character-narrative sandbox play. The PCs engage with elements of their choosing and those elements are typically defined by their character motivations, desires, and weaknesses.

Also, it does not allow players to 'mess up' the GMs carefully planned ideas. Why? Because if you GM in this style you don't tend to have carefully planned ideas. You don't tend to have a detailed map of the city.

You have a loose framework of characters and their motivations, and some tense situations in which the PCs have a stake. GM-ing in this style feels like being a player - you have to react, to adapt, to take new ideas and changes to the landscape on board and roll with them, to be just as willing as the players to discover things you didn't know about the gameworld. You sit down with ideas, but you create the world at the table with the players.

And the same exists with sandbox play -- though you can easily have the detailed map in addition! The setting, and scene framing act as constraints on character action and may require thought, planning, and inventve resource use to achieve your desired result.

So it has some real strengths.

In fairness, it has some weaknesses to. Play can begin to feel directionless - the GM has less authority to keep 'the story' going, so if the players aren't careful in what they create you can suddenly find yourself with 10 'story arcs' none of which are being resolved. Games can feel like a never-ending soap opera rather than a movie.

It also relies heavily on players engaging with it. Quiet players, players who want to take a back seat, who won't put something out there - they can be difficult to deal with if they also have narration rights. As a playstyle it assumes pro-activeness on the part of players.

Tying into that, in my experience, you need players who make characters with weaknesses. Characters with beliefs that can be threatened, problems to be exploited, friendships to be tested - all that stuff. Reactive players, who don't provide such hooks, lead to difficult games.

This turned into a longer post than expected, but I guess - in answer to the OPs question... giving players narrative control is as good as the players make it.

It shares many of the same weaknesses as sandbox play. The multiple story arcs and soap opera feel, I consider a feature not a bug.

Fundamentally, whta you are describing is a reactive environment and players that engage that environment.

How players engage that environment -- whether through authorial control or through directed character action seems less important for the points you are making.

I think the moral here is "good players in a game style they like are good".

 

[Janx]

If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group). Mort said:

To me, when he indicates "changing the reality of the game world as he planned it" and he has a drawn up map of the city with which he could reliably use up to this point as a part of the setting, changing it would be changing the setting (which is part of internal consistency, much the same way I'd consider "established fiction" to be).

Let's start with the city example. The bad guy is running away. He MIGHT be taking the best route. Apparently the PCs know where he is going

When the PCs ask if there's a faster route, they are not necessarily asking to move streets around. They are certainly seeking to gain a tactical advantage through information.

a) did the bad guy take the shortest commonly known route?
b) is there an uncommon route that is shorter still (like back alleys or cutting through Wang's diner).

Odds are good your map does not show Wang's diner on it nor if it has doors that would allow that path to exist.

As a GM, if you did not make some kind of knowledge roll for the NPC to take the best route, than all you have legitimately done is declared he took a route. It's not fair to assume he's got perfect knowledge.

So when the PCs ask, if you didn't rolll, you can use the PCs roll as a skill challenge vs. the NPC's knowledge of the same city

I don't expect a GM to think of making a skill check for the NPC, especially for what might be an impromptu escape plan. But when the players are trying to chase him, his ability to choose the best route is in competition with the players and as a race, that decision need be decided by a common tool.

The outcome need not result in streets shifting. That would be nonsense. It does mean that generation on non-declared world details might happen. 4th street bridge is closed for repairs, so while it is on the shortest route normally, it's a dead-end when you get there. Wang's cuts out 75 feet on rounding that corner block. Etc.

It might be that the NPC is a visitor and planned his escape route to his rocket ship by studying the city map from the visitors bureau last week. The city map that doesn't include alleyways or market streets that are not intended for through traffic.


As a GM, the moment the PCs are in contest with the NPC, the map and the NPCs ability to navigate it are called into question. That can mean Run checks, Nevigation checks, etc.

If you insist that the NPC took the absolute perfect path to the destination, you may be making a GMing mistake.

When the players ask if there's a shorter route, that's your opportunity to bring fairness and game rules back into the mix.