Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Mort]

The player is not telling the DM that his character knows something the DM thought he didn't; the player is changing the world as the DM knows it.

Was there a shorter route? No. Is there a shorter route now? Yes.

Should that shorter route continue to exist in the future? Yes.

Could that shorter route have had an impact on campaign play in the past? Potentially.

I'm not sure there is a problem in any of these circumstances. Even the last one as obviously, no one actually looked in the past because it had not come up. If it had come up in the past the DM could certainly rule that no route exists to maintain continuity. Though maybe the route is new, or the path is new, or the players know the city better now so really there is no conflict.

Who has to track these effects? The DM. Now let's suppose that the PCs are engaged in a friendly rivalry to catch the villain that the DM thought was fleeing by the most direct route.

Player 1: Do I know a better route? I roll a 21!
DM: Yes, you'll catch him at...
Player 2: Wait a minute! I know this city better than him I roll a 25!
DM: OK you know an even better route. You'll catch him at...
Player 3: Hey wait a minute! Remember 13 sessions ago when I was fleeing from the ragamuffins! I found a terrific route out of here, I rolled somewhere in the mid-30s!.

How many better routes can exist? How long do they continue to exist? Why didn't the villain traveling by the most direct route take them?

This is silly. The first player (who rolls the 21) knows the route. The second player (who rolled a 25) also knows the route - why does there have to be a different one? I'm arguing for limited player narrative control over certain aspects of the setting - not drawing tunnels in the wall a la toon!

Obviously DM judgment has to be at play here, but that's why there is a live DM sitting at the table! And before you argue slippery slope! Every DM judgment call is a potentially slippery slope - doesn't mean they should not be made.

 

[Mort]

And finally, I find it undercuts my feeling of accomplishment because it lets me sidestep the situations presented.

"Will my choices prevail in this situation?"

is under cut by

"How can I change this situation?"

I suppose that's the difference.

I believe the feeling of accomplishment is not only maintained but enhanced by giving the player a chance to contribute (even in some small way) both to the situation and the setting. In a sense the DM is saying you have choice A or B but I'm open to choice C if you can show me it's better.

That’s why I started the thread. Viewpoints other than your own can only enhance future play experience and help a lot in explaining and (hopefully) understanding other points of view even when they strongly disagree!

 

[Ahnehnois]

And finally, I find it undercuts my feeling of accomplishment because it lets me sidestep the situations presented.

"Will my choices prevail in this situation?"

is under cut by

"How can I change this situation?"

Are you familiar with the Kobayashi Maru scenario?

Was there a shorter route? No. Is there a shorter route now? Yes.

Should that shorter route continue to exist in the future? Yes.

Could that shorter route have had an impact on campaign play in the past? Potentially

I don't think there is any route until the DM canonizes it by describing the terrain during play. And unless that description excludes all possible alternatives, there's still room for player suggestion.

Personally, I don't use maps much at all. I just improvise that sort of thing. To me, it makes little difference what the source of my ideas are during that improvisation, only that those ideas hold water.

It is fair to say that the DM has to internalize all this stuff and make sure it makes sense and doesn't change canon. I think that's pretty easy to do. If absolutely necessary, there's always retconning. TV shows do it, even good ones, so why not D&D?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interesting topic mort. Generally I am not a fan of players having narrative cOntrol. I like a consistent and stable setting that is external to my character and see the GM's role as establishing this. However I also don't believe that rigid adherence to any gaming philosophy is more important than tailoring your approach to the preferences of the group.

I think the example you provided is a border case though ( it isn't really giving the player full narrative control (ie spending action points to change the available options). It sounds more like he is asking the GM if he can make a roll to find any shortcuts. It is a border case because this may well be a point when the GM would ad lib anyway. As a player I would prefer the GM first decide if there is a shortcut based on his existing knowledge of the city ( if it is reasonable he should conclude there is one). Then the player can roll to see if he finds it. I would want the existence of the shortcut to be a result of the roll though. I want that to be something beyond my control as player.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is fair to say that the DM has to internalize all this stuff and make sure it makes sense and doesn't change canon. I think that's pretty easy to do. If absolutely necessary, there's always retconning. TV shows do it, even good ones, so why not D&D?

Largely because TV shows (even good ones) are scripted stories. The events in a game are the the results of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

By the way I think it is fine for players to give the GM advice or opinions asche is makingvthese decisions. If I am runnung a scenario in Rome and I hadn't considered a possible route, through something like a cryptoporticoe, and a player makes a compelling case for such a route existing in their location, it will definitely factor into my decision. But when my character can control setting material via mechanics, it kind of kills the reality of the setting for me.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Mort, I think your instincts are great.

A city map is not a city. A city has street vendors, sewers, shops, houses, etc...

I think a question from a player like this is not only creative, it is totally reasonable. Often players pose questions to issues we have not even considered as DMs. If the rational answer to the question might be "yes", then a dice roll is certainly in order.

A response to the issue at hand concerning the chase might be:

"Hm... well, you know there are no alleys that cut through. The road he is on does wind a bit, and there is traffic in the street that he is bypassing. You could try to cut through one of the shops that you used to hang out in as a kid, go up the stairs, run along the rooftop, but there's no way down unless you find a soft landing..."

"I'm going for it!"

"You are able to get to the rooftop, and see him up ahead on the street. You've gained on him a bit, but he's still ahead"

"I'm running on the rooftop to catch up with him".

"You are able to run and catch up with him".

"is there anything up ahead I can jump down into.. a haywagon maybe?"

"just ahead there is a hay wagon"

"I'm going to jump in the hay wagon. Is there any way when I jump that I can gain an advantage on him?"

"Not really".

"I'm jumping"

"Roll to see if you land in the wagon.. easy roll... the wagon's pretty big and you aren't that far up"

*rolls" "I made it!"

"Ok.. now roll to see if you hit the pitchfork that was in the wagon"

"Arrrrggggg!"

*rolls "Missed it! I'm grabbing the pitchfork and trying to get out in front of him and stop him!"

 

[Ahnehnois]

Largely because TV shows (even good ones) are scripted stories. The events in a game are the the results of play.

There's different ways of doing this, but I base my D&D to some extent on Battlestar Galactica, which has a great deal of podcasts and other material out there describing its creative process.

The show had a script, sure, and was expected to shoot that script, but directors and actors were also expected to make creative choices on the set and frequently did. The showrunner would choose what made it to the screen and change future scripts if necessary. There were certainly retcons in the series, but its continuity was a strong point.

I think of D&D very similarly. I have moments in my head before the game, but I'll go where events lead. In both cases there's a plan, but that plan is put in to practice in real time combining choices from all the participants.

 

[Niccodaemus]

There's different ways of doing this, but I base my D&D to some extent on Battlestar Galactica, which has a great deal of podcasts and other material out there describing its creative process.

The show had a script, sure, and was expected to shoot that script, but directors and actors were also expected to make creative choices on the set and frequently did. The showrunner would choose what made it to the screen and change future scripts if necessary. There were certainly retcons in the series, but its continuity was a strong point.

I think of D&D very similarly. I have moments in my head before the game, but I'll go where events lead. In both cases there's a plan, but that plan is put in to practice in real time combining choices from all the participants.

This is a great example! I think the DM has two roles, one as director, and one as showrunner.

DM as director doesn't care about long story arcs. The players have total control over events during a session, and can muck up any storyline.

The DM as showrunner has to re-evaluate the campaign world at the end of a session, and alter the course of long story arcs based on the results of the gaming session.

During the session, the showrunner is there, but should not interfere unless a player's action will make life a nightmare for the DM.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The same split role applies to players (and actors) I think.

The player is supposed to represent his character's perspective, but also to make the game enjoyable for all. (Just as an actor has to play his character, but also make sure the artistic piece as a whole is entertaining and fulfilling).