JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I can't XP, but I'm glad we cleared it up. I like agreeing with other posters. As always, play what you like
Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?
- Thread starter Mort
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Well thank you. Yes, you are 100% right, but I would have thought that this didn't actually need stating.
Now, inside the game the most important thing to any player is his or her character. Is this really a controversial point?
In a word, yes. Do you, as a DM, tell your players, "Sorry, no, your character wouldn't do that"?
Do your players say, "My character is the third son of a minor noble."?
The players have always been able to dictate elements of their character to the DM and the DM has never been allowed to dictate character elements to the player.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Oh, totally. And, to be fair, I did say that this was only my opinion, not incontrovertible fact. I do think games work better when the players have limited editorial control. While that does allow them to occasionally over rule the DM, since the DM sets the baseline all the time, it's not that big of a deal that the DM doesn't also have this power.
Again, since the DM sets the parameters of the scenario, controls every single element of the game world except the PC's, and has the entirety of the game at his fingertips, allowing the players to dictate to the DM in very limited fashion isn't exactly a huge game changer. The Dm still gets to wear his big daddy pants all he likes, it's just that once in a while, he has to go pantless.
In these situations, the way I avoid those "hiccups" is to introduce external elements - like the unexpected street fair, or the bird crapping on someone's cloak during negotiations - which then explain the outcome that has been mechanically determined without needing to posit that anyone (PC or NPC) suddenly became incompetent.
The "cost" of doing it this way is being prepared to sever the link between making a check where a PC's skill number is used, and interpreting that check as reflecting nothing but the PC's effort within the fiction. You have to be prepared to narrate the outcome of the check using director's stance.
I think Burning Wheel is an interesting example of this. Like RQ, RM or classic Traveller it has very simulationist-seeming character building mechanics, with detailed skill lists, intricate interaction between skill bonuses and stat bonuses, rules for improving by doing and by training, etc, etc. And even it's action resolution mechanics begin in a simulationist way - the GM is urged, for example, to set difficulties based on the objective difficulty of the situation in the gameworld, and not in any sort of relative way (so very different from 4e, HeroQuest, Maelstrom etc).
But then its action resolution mechanics take a very non-simulationist turn. In particular, when a skill check fails in BW, the GM is urged to focus not on failure or success at the task, but failure or success at the intent. Thus, failure on an influence check might represent not an objective failure of your guy to be convincing, but rather that it turns out that the NPC knew and hated your father, so turns out to be more hostile to your offer than you expected. The GM is actively encouraged to use this sort of external, meta-gaming approach to describing the outcomes of checks - and especially failed checks - as part of the techniques for keeping the game moving.
A very ingenious blending of traditional simulationist, and indie, sensibilities.
(Another ingenious thing about Burning Wheel is this: to advance by doing (rather than by practice) requires a certain mix of checks at a certain range of difficulties. So players have inbuilt incentives to sometimes take on hard checks, and sometimes easier checks, without the GM having to manipulate the ingame situation or the mechanics. In my view, a very clever way of resolving the problem of only ever having the best-suited PC tackle a given challenge.)
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Interesting post. I can't XP yet, but I find the mixture of simulationist/narrativist more palatable than a more narrative approach. Thanks for the insight, I found it interesting. As always, play what you like
Fanaelialae
Legend
Good post. I wouldn't consider player improvisation "player narrative control" but I'm very much on board with "if the player can realistically attempt something, he should be able to" and "the NPC shouldn't be able to auto-win and there's nothing you can do to stop it."
Then again, I don't think anyone in the thread is supporting either of those ideas, and the fact that several people keep pressing those points as if it's the case if confusing to me. Either it's a fundamental breakdown in simple communication, or it's dishonest. I sincerely hope it's the former. As always, play what you like
Thanks!
You can call it improvisation or narrative control or whatever you prefer. Personally, I think introducing the term narrative control confused the discussion more than it helped. As I mentioned upthread, people were using it differently and I think we all started to focus too much on terminology as opposed to concept.
I believe that it was a miscommunication issue. I don't really see the necessity of suggesting that anyone was being duplicitous. In retrospect, it seems to me that some folks were using the shortcut as an example of " player improvisation," while others were focusing on the idea of the shortcut itself and the potential implications thereof. That was probably at least part of the disconnect.
Secondary to that, just because someone brings up the point that "X is bad DMing" doesn't mean that it's being directed at anyone in the thread. In one of my posts I believe I even mentioned that I've had the misfortune to play with such a railroading DM.
YMMV
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Yeah, I agree that it might just be a miscommunication issue. I do think some people in this thread have been purposefully mischaracterizing other posts to further their point (usually by using hyperbole), but I don't think you have (and I do think it's happened on both sides of the issue, here). Just my thoughts on it, though, and I reserve the right to be completely mistaken. As always, play what you like
To play the devil's advocate:
"Have you considered X? Are you really sure your character would do that?"
Of course the player gets the last word on his character's actions, but their decisions can be ill-informed and 'out-of-character' without them realizing it.
This is something that often depends on the game setting and how familiar the player is with it.
This is something that depends on the game system. In Runequest if you roll that you're a farmer's son, then that's it. There are many systems that require the expenditure of a character-building resource to define the character's social standing.
Trying to gain something for nothing by writing it in your character's back story is something I frown upon. However, I generally prefer saying 'yes, but' instead of 'no', i.e. if I sense story potential in something I'll allow it 'with a twist'.
Maybe not in these words, but, yeah, I've been doing that:
"Have you considered X? Are you really sure your character would do that?"
Of course the player gets the last word on his character's actions, but their decisions can be ill-informed and 'out-of-character' without them realizing it.
This is something that often depends on the game setting and how familiar the player is with it.
Nope, they get to roll on the family and social standing charts
This is something that depends on the game system. In Runequest if you roll that you're a farmer's son, then that's it. There are many systems that require the expenditure of a character-building resource to define the character's social standing.
Trying to gain something for nothing by writing it in your character's back story is something I frown upon. However, I generally prefer saying 'yes, but' instead of 'no', i.e. if I sense story potential in something I'll allow it 'with a twist'.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Players always get to make the decisions for thier characters. This is not the same as dictating character elements.
"I shoot a 10d6 lighting bolt out of my mouth to stop the fleeing bad guy"
Its a character element so this should be fine right?
Hussar
Legend
Speaking of hyperbole.
Do you have this ability in your character (ie, 10th level wizard forex)? Or, do you have in place a mechanic which allows for limited narrative control that would allow for this to occur?
If not, then no, it would not be fine.
The problem I see is that narrative control being given to the players is automatically painted as the players having 100% control over all elements of play 100% of the time.
I would suggest actually reading a few games that allow for limited narrative control to be exercised by players before actually participating in the conversation. It saves a lot of time from having to repeat endlessly what granting limited narrative control means.
Similar Threads
