Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[JamesonCourage]

For me. The issue isn't about the players mesding up the GM's campaign, it is about my experience of the game as a player. When players have too much control of the narrative The setting just feels less objective and less a thing on its own to me. That is why I like the GM as consistent source of setting material. I'd much rather focus on my character's experience of the setting and have his control over it be limited to his abilities (ie he can try to exert some control of the setting through interacting with it; my influence over setting as player begins and ends with my character).

This deserves XP (which I sadly cannot give). Players not having narrative control beyond in-character interaction isn't a bad thing, it's a preference thing. As soon as people accept that -and stop framing it as an uptight GM thing- the easier these conversations will be. As always, play what you like

 

[Guest 85555]

This deserves XP (which I sadly cannot give). Players not having narrative control beyond in-character interaction isn't a bad thing, it's a preference thing. As soon as people accept that -and stop framing it as an uptight GM thing- the easier these conversations will be. As always, play what you like

Exactly. And I would even add that there are some campaign styles where I prefer players having some narrative control (if I were playing something cinematic in the style of pirates of the carribbean or indiana jones for example). It just isn't my default preference and not what I expect from standard D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I like the GM as consistent source of setting material. I'd much rather focus on my character's experience of the setting and have his control over it be limited to his abilities (ie he can try to exert some control of the setting through interacting with it; my influence over setting as player begins and ends with my character).

Is it OK to explore the parameters of this a bit?

First, I assume that when you make your PC you make some decisions about your PC's origin and backstory that involve exercising narrative control over the setting (because your PC presumably didn't choose the circumstances and content of his/her birth and biography).

Second, suppose your PC backstory says nothing about siblings or other relatives. Would you ever ask the GM to introduce such an NPC (or even suggest that, for example, you might have a relative in your home village)? Or would you leave all this in the hands of the GM?

A third thing I'm interested in relates to a current element of my own game. The PCs in my game recently fought a group of pirate thugs, and one of the thugs - their leader - escaped. One of the PCs, who is reestablishing a temple that is located on the same island in the town as the docks and the pirates, wants to recruit the pirates as guards, tarrif collectors and tithe collectors for his temple. I know this because the player of that PC emailed me explaining what he wanted to do.

Now, I hadn't really given much thought to the personality of this pirate leader beyond what came out in the combat that took place. But the player's plans oblige me to ask myself, "Is this pirate leader amenable to becoming chief guard and tax collector for a temple instead?" And given that one of my players wants this to happen, and given that it will not make any significant difference to the pointy end of play, but will be primarily a background thing, I'm strongly inclined to answer "Yes".

This is a player, de facto, influencing the setting not via his PC, but by stating plans to me as GM which then incline me as GM to decide that the setting (in this case, the personality of a particular NPC) is one sort of thing and not another.

Is this the sort of non-PC-mediated influence over setting that you don't like in D&D?

 

[Mort]

...A third thing I'm interested in relates to a current element of my own game. The PCs in my game recently fought a group of pirate thugs, and one of the thugs - their leader - escaped. One of the PCs, who is reestablishing a temple that is located on the same island in the town as the docks and the pirates, wants to recruit the pirates as guards, tarrif collectors and tithe collectors for his temple. I know this because the player of that PC emailed me explaining what he wanted to do.

Now, I hadn't really given much thought to the personality of this pirate leader beyond what came out in the combat that took place. But the player's plans oblige me to ask myself, "Is this pirate leader amenable to becoming chief guard and tax collector for a temple instead?" And given that one of my players wants this to happen, and given that it will not make any significant difference to the pointy end of play, but will be primarily a background thing, I'm strongly inclined to answer "Yes".

This is a player, de facto, influencing the setting not via his PC, but by stating plans to me as GM which then incline me as GM to decide that the setting (in this case, the personality of a particular NPC) is one sort of thing and not another.

Is this the sort of non-PC-mediated influence over setting that you don't like in D&D?

I had something very similar come up in a prior game. The players inherrited a chunk of land that they had previously been involved with. There was a highwayman on that chunk of land that had previously erm.. divested the players of much of their valuables.

When the players returned to the land they were much more powerful and had quite the bit of fun showing the highwayman the "error of his ways." I had not thought much beyond this point (intending the highwayman to either rot in prison, get beheaded or quitely slink away or some such). The players, however, decided to make him their tax collector!

He held this "post" through the rest of the campaign (which lasted another 3 years and 11 levels or so after this point). It added a fun element that I would never have thought of/added myself.

 

[Guest 85555]

No (however I don't like it when GMs include things like relatives because players ask). I am reallt talking about more direct narrative control after character creation. If I understand the situation, the player is just declaring his pcs intention in advance. All that is doing is giving you more time to think about it. I don't see this as real narrative control, and the player is still acting from his character's pov.

If he had said something like "i want some pirates to show up so I can recruit them" and you obliged, that would be more in the realm of what I am discussing.

Also, note I never said I objected to the approach in the first place, just that it isn't my prefered style.

 

[Guest 85555]

Pemerton, re-reading you post and will amend slightly. As a player I wouldn't want you to have the npc be ammenable to the suggestion simply because I expressed interest in it. I'd much rather you do so based on the NPC's personality, motives and history. If you hadn't given thought to those things, then I'd at least prefer you decide based on the liklihood of such a character type being amenable. As a player (not a gm) I hate things like wish lists, whether that be items or story archs. I love pcs being pro-active, I just don't like the GM tailoring outcomes to players (much prefer things get resolved through character interaction).

 

[Imaro]

Is the player's narrative control contradicting established facts in the campaign?

Established with who? In a game that is run in a more traditional manner, things can certainly be established in the world that the PC's do not know about yet.

That's pretty much where I'd draw the line. No, the player's character cannot shoot lightning from his mouth, because it's been established in the game world that this character isn't innately magical and has no actual means of doing so.

OTOH, going by the original example, there are no established facts which are being contradicted. "Is there a shortcut" is not contradicting (presumably) anything. If it is contradicting things, then it would not be limited narrative control, but rather, outright full power narrative control.

So when you say "established" you really mean "established with/by the players". Now if I as DM have already decided that the villain has taken the shortest route... then why should a PC who is looking for a shorter route succeed? That particular avenue is not viable at this point (I don't see how this is any different than deciding a NPC doesn't respond well to intimidation??)... If I as DM have taken the time to establish this in my notes, on a map or whatever... I would assume it is important to the narrative thus why should it suddenly change? Especially if there are other avenues in which to overcome this particular challenge. Why is a story where they find a shorter route... better than a mad dash through a crowded street using footwork (athletics and/or acrobatics), quick wits and keen eyes(insight and/or perception), while not alerting unddue attention (stealth and/or streetwise) to slowly gain on the villain?

My other question is what is the limit? I mean does the DM try his hardest to accomodate each and every idea that someone comes up with to change the narrative as long as it isn't contradicting an established fact? Does the DM only get narrative control when the PC's don't want it? What if two PC's want the narrative to go in a different direction...who wins out?

The funny thing is, everyone seems to jump to this sort of thing whenever this conversation comes up. "We cannot possibly give that level of control to the players because they'll be douchebags and start abusing it" is about what's being said here.

My question always is, why are you playing with people you cannot trust to not screw over your campaign? There are a hundred different ways a player can deep six your campaign if he wants to. What does it matter if you add a hundred and first way?

See my problems isn't in the giving of narrative control to players, however in a game where there is no structure set up to account for it (in other words, something to make it a limited resource) it becomes what I would call the "uber power". You see in essence this is the solve anything by creating a counter spell...spell. And I hate to say this but even strongly narrative games realize that given the opportunity, most players do want things to go their way and if they can will always make it so. That's why games like FATE have compels... where the PC's have to go into incovenient/dangerous/etc. situations in order to replenish the narrartive control pool... because even these games recognize there has to be a limiter on narrative control of the game so it doesn't become too easy and that the easisest answer doesn't always make the best game or story.

Adding this sort of thing to D&D is trivially easy. It simply requires a slight shift in the DM. Or, to put it another way, the DM has to relax the sphincter just a little and let the players have a bit more say in how things run and trust that the players are just as interested in having a good game as the DM.

Everyone's defintion of a "good game" is not the same. I think in general it is harder for many players (though by no means all) to see an all-encompassing version of a "good game" because they are in essence driving the desires, goals, etc. of a particular character in said story... thus why most heavily narrative games have a balancer of some sort or the other. The thing is sooner or later, with that many people, some narrative drives are eventually going to come into conflict with each other and, unlike most games meant to be played in a shared narrative space, D&D has no determiner for whose narrative should supercede every one else's.

 

[Nagol]

Is it OK to explore the parameters of this a bit?

First, I assume that when you make your PC you make some decisions about your PC's origin and backstory that involve exercising narrative control over the setting (because your PC presumably didn't choose the circumstances and content of his/her birth and biography).

For D&D, I rarely create much backstory as I'm more interested in the play going forward. I'll make a few decisions about my background as necessary to appease the DM and other players. I'll include as few elements from the past as I am not particulary interested in where the character came from, but where it's going. For me, character history is what the player can point to since the PC was introoduced to the campaign. Even when I do provide a background, I present a draft to the DM for his approval/input and treat the task as a delegation rather than authority.

Note that I am also strongly against the DM arbitrarily providing said background after-the-fact once play begins -- primarily because most DMs try to assign emotional relationships and in-character feelings as part of the background and those are mine to control as a player. If the DM presents and estranged brother and tells me the reason for estrangement without telling me how my charactrer felt/feels towards said individual, I'm more OK with it.

Second, suppose your PC backstory says nothing about siblings or other relatives. Would you ever ask the GM to introduce such an NPC (or even suggest that, for example, you might have a relative in your home village)? Or would you leave all this in the hands of the GM?

I'm a big fan for random tables for this stuff since as you've pointed out, the character had limited or no control over the situation. Usually, for D&D I won't bother with siblings and generally expect they won't make an appearance. The party is the surrogate family for the character. In D&D, I won't request previous relationships. If I am traveling to my home as previously determined, I'll ask what my character knows and who my character knows in town and what my character thinks they think of him.

A third thing I'm interested in relates to a current element of my own game. The PCs in my game recently fought a group of pirate thugs, and one of the thugs - their leader - escaped. One of the PCs, who is reestablishing a temple that is located on the same island in the town as the docks and the pirates, wants to recruit the pirates as guards, tarrif collectors and tithe collectors for his temple. I know this because the player of that PC emailed me explaining what he wanted to do.

Now, I hadn't really given much thought to the personality of this pirate leader beyond what came out in the combat that took place. But the player's plans oblige me to ask myself, "Is this pirate leader amenable to becoming chief guard and tax collector for a temple instead?" And given that one of my players wants this to happen, and given that it will not make any significant difference to the pointy end of play, but will be primarily a background thing, I'm strongly inclined to answer "Yes".

This is a player, de facto, influencing the setting not via his PC, but by stating plans to me as GM which then incline me as GM to decide that the setting (in this case, the personality of a particular NPC) is one sort of thing and not another.

Is this the sort of non-PC-mediated influence over setting that you don't like in D&D?

Yep, wouldn't like that. If I as ask for such a thing, I'm hoping the DM has assigned/will assign a personality and then determine if my overtures will be successful. I do not want something to happen just because I want it to happen, but because those results flow out of the situation.

 

[chaochou]

Now if I as DM have already decided that the villain has taken the shortest route... then why should a PC who is looking for a shorter route succeed?

If you, as a DM, have taken that decision and are intent on retaining the authority to make that decision, that's a playstyle choice. As far as I can tell, this thread is about exploring alternatives to that playstyle choice.

I would assume it is important to the narrative thus why should it suddenly change?

The question in the thread, though, is whose narrative is it at any given point?

My other question is what is the limit? I mean does the DM try his hardest to accomodate each and every idea that someone comes up with to change the narrative as long as it isn't contradicting an established fact? Does the DM only get narrative control when the PC's don't want it? What if two PC's want the narrative to go in a different direction...who wins out?

It tends not to work like that. Groups tend to move from a dictatorship to a democracy. Stuff gets talked about, ideas get thrown into the mix. Some happen, some don't. Stuff gets resolved, between friends, concessions get made, deals get done, like the way it does if two people want to see a different movie.

See my problems isn't in the giving of narrative control to players, however in a game where there is no structure set up to account for it (in other words, something to make it a limited resource) it becomes what I would call the "uber power".

Really? Is this from experience? If so, our experiences differ massively. In my experience, as I said in a previous post, players don't do this.

I don't think balance in games like FATE come from 'compels' or limits to narrative power in the way you seem to describe. For example, in FATE, if I want to be a jerk I can write really dull aspects like 'I am aweseme at everything' and 'I win'. FATE requires players to write nuanced aspects with both positive and negative connotations, but nothing in FATE forces you to. But if you don't you short-change yourself of all the fun. FATE players know this.

In my experience, players who want narrative control also understand how to use it to make the game more fun. They don't use it for a lame instant counterspell for the evil curse, they use it to say the curse can be broken by the mystical hermit on Dragon Peak who was rumoured to have died 200 years ago.

Clearly if you've already decided 'how the narrative goes' then this is a problem. But this isn't about 'good' or 'bad' or 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It's to say it need not be a problem, if it's how you aim to play.

 

[Imaro]

If you, as a DM, have taken that decision and are intent on retaining the authority to make that decision, that's a playstyle choice. As far as I can tell, this thread is about exploring alternatives to that playstyle choice.

No, it's not. It's about discussing whether DM's prefer, don't prefer or fall somewhere in-between giving PC's narrative contol or not... and their reasons for that preference. I think you've missed the bigger picture of the thread.

The question in the thread, though, is whose narrative is it at any given point?

I think it's more correct to say this is one of the questions raised in the thread and is exactly my point... why should the PC's be able to overide anything I as a DM have decided beforehand... not stuff I haven't decided but things I have set down before that the PC's wouldn't know?

OaN: What guarantees that their idea willl create more fun than my own?

It tends not to work like that. Groups tend to move from a dictatorship to a democracy. Stuff gets talked about, ideas get thrown into the mix. Some happen, some don't. Stuff gets resolved, between friends, concessions get made, deals get done, like the way it does if two people want to see a different movie.

Yes, because friends never argue and friends don't ever fall out. If the world was a perfect place you might have a point... but then I'd ask with all this ability to work stuff out and resolve it... why are there any rules disputes... why do classes have to be balanced? Why do we need rules for combat? All this stuff could just be mutually agreed upon and resolved by everyone without objective rules to guide it?

Really? Is this from experience? If so, our experiences differ massively. In my experience, as I said in a previous post, players don't do this.

I don't think balance in games like FATE come from 'compels' or limits to narrative power in the way you seem to describe. For example, in FATE, if I want to be a jerk I can write really dull aspects like 'I am aweseme at everything' and 'I win'. FATE requires players to write nuanced aspects with both positive and negative connotations, but nothing in FATE forces you to. But if you don't you short-change yourself of all the fun. FATE players know this.

You also short-change yourself in the ability to acquire fate points and thus the ability to exert narrative control. Why did you gloss over what the actual rules do? And really, you're really trying to speak for all "FATE players"??

In my experience, players who want narrative control also understand how to use it to make the game more fun. They don't use it for a lame instant counterspell for the evil curse, they use it to say the curse can be broken by the mystical hermit on Dragon Peak who was rumoured to have died 200 years ago.

I'm sorry but your experiences aren't everyone's... and again I ask with players like these in every game why did groups have issues with the casters stepping on people's toes in D&D 3.5... they should have been able to recognize that the groups fun was the most important thing... not their own, right?

Clearly if you've already decided 'how the narrative goes' then this is a problem. But this isn't about 'good' or 'bad' or 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It's to say it need not be a problem, if it's how you aim to play.

I think everyone is in agreement with it being a playstyle choice... and as I said earlier people are here to discuss the for's, the against's the why's and the how's of the different styles. I stated earlier that I prefer narrative control in games that have mechanics built to accomodate it (as did some others in the thread). I think my questions touch on fundamental issues that can arise when their are no mechanics to handle it and beyond "have great and accomodating players who will sacrifice their own gratification for that of everyone at the game..." was looking for answers to those questions that arise in games without mechanics for it from the people who tend to do it.