Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[chaochou]

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.

I don't think you're in a position to say what, if any, picture I've missed.

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?

And if the question is 'why?' it must also be 'why not?'

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?

Why? We don't need rules for combat. This stuff can all be done without written rules. Arguments arise, they get resolved. It's no reason, of itself, not to experiment with giving players more control.

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"??

You wrote that compels act as limiters on player narrative power. I don't agree. Compels are a mechanic which allow the GM to give out more narrative power.

When I offer a player a FP for a compel, I'm offering a deal. Take this shiny FP for later to go to the spooky house now. The player can take the deal or reject it. If I take out the compel rules, I don't get the option to give out Fate.

So compels are not a limiter in the way you describe. On the contrary, they remove the limit. They mean you can have more Fate in a session than your refresh, should you want it.

I'm sorry but your experiences aren't everyone's...

No, they're not. But they are my experiences. You've written about how 'most players will always seek to get their way and if given the chance will always make it so'. How they will use narrative rights to short-cut challenge.

(As an aside, I notice you pull me up on speaking to 'FATE players' and yet are comfortable stating what 'most players will always' do.)

So, is this from experience? What were the circumstances? It might be an interesting route for the thread to discuss why this happens. I have some ideas, but I'm done writing for now.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think you're in a position to say what, if any, picture I've missed.

I'm in no better or worse position than you were... when you decided to tell me (incorrectly I might add) what the thread was about in your earlier post.

And if the question is 'why?' it must also be 'why not?'

Uhm... ok and if someone poses that question to me I will answer it... just as others have in this thread.

Why? We don't need rules for combat. This stuff can all be done without written rules. Arguments arise, they get resolved. It's no reason, of itself, not to experiment with giving players more control.

In and of itself it is very much a reason, for some, not to want to deal with giving players narrative control. You see you haven't addressed the point except to again hand wave it away in some... "it'll all work out..." vaguery.

The fact of that matter is that it doesn't always work out. There are threads on other boards as well as posts in this thread about shared narrative play not working out for some groups... now whether that is because they don't enjoy the playstyle, didn't have a rules structure in place to deal with it or it just didn't work itself out... claiming it'll all work itself out in the end is proven false by the problems people have posted and listed in this thread and others.

You wrote that compels act as limiters on player narrative power. I don't agree. Compels are a mechanic which allow the GM to give out more narrative power.

It seems more like you are playing semantic games than anything else here. Compels determine how many FP's one gets... thus they are a limiter on one's narrative control (i.e. Fate Points) in the game... compels can either increase or not increase one's FP's (thus setting a liimit). Good compels will allow one more opportunities to gain FP's and thus have the ability to exert more narrative control. Bad compels do the opposite which is exactly what I said earlier. So it's not fun a person with bad compels is screwing themselves out of (though that may be a seocndary effect), it is narrative control and effectiveness... again like I said earlier.

For someone who doesn't want narrative control... having bad compels would not in any wya diminish their fun, and might actually enhance it as they have no reason to end up in bad situations except as chance ordains it.

When I offer a player a FP for a compel, I'm offering a deal. Take this shiny FP for later to go to the spooky house now. The player can take the deal or reject it. If I take out the compel rules, I don't get the option to give out Fate.


So compels are not a limiter in the way you describe. On the contrary, they remove the limit. They mean you can have more Fate in a session than your refresh, should you want it.

So compels determine a players upper limit of narrative control opportunities(FP's). You're agreeing with everythig I said but trying to word it differently so that it appears different when it isn't.

No, they're not. But they are my experiences. You've written about how 'most players will always seek to get their way and if given the chance will always make it so'. How they will use narrative rights to short-cut challenge.

(As an aside, I notice you pull me up on speaking to 'FATE players' and yet are comfortable stating what 'most players will always' do.)

So, is this from experience? What were the circumstances? It might be an interesting route for the thread to discuss why this happens. I have some ideas, but I'm done writing for now.

You're right... I should have said "some players" or "IMO, most players". As to taking a specific example, let's keep it generic and look at the OP's example...

The simple example given speaks to my point. The PC didn't try to narratively change the situation to make it harder for himself... or even really more interesting... he made it easier on himself. Where there was no shortcut... now there is, how is this not advocating for his or her goals as opposed to what would make a more intersting story or even more challenging gameplay, like you claim players are apt to do?

See compels balance this out... they make it so that in order to make things narratively easy for yourself... as some players are inclined to do with this type of power... you also must place yourself in those dangerous, interesting and more challenging situations. Without that balancer some players will always create a shortcut to the answer.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

Let me can take a crack at this, too, if you don't mind.

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).

Yes, of course, but this, to me, if similar to character generation, when you choose aspects about your character mechanically, as well. These things are chosen not from a character standpoint. There's no point when "exploring things in-game" is a real option, so it doesn't trump player narrative control (which is more like player influence when I run games).

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?

If it's not covered, it's all up to me as the GM. A player can say, "I had this in mind," but if it's not written down, they know that it gets cleared through me, and that I have complete veto power. I'm willing to work with players, and if they said, "I assume I have family in my hometown" I have no real reason to deny that to them, most of the time. It's kind of an implied part of chargen, in my mind.

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?

Like we've discussed before at some length (maybe that's why you didn't ask me this!), I would make a judgment call on what I think the pirate would do. What got him into this? What are his motivations? What kind of man is he? Then, I'd decide on how he'd react. If it's something he'd consider, then he'd be willing to negotiate. If it's something he'd love to do, he'd accept. It just depends.

Just my views on it. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

It's interesting how different people approach the game in different ways.

this, to me, if similar to character generation, when you choose aspects about your character mechanically, as well. These things are chosen not from a character standpoint. There's no point when "exploring things in-game" is a real option, so it doesn't trump player narrative control

There are some approaches to PC gen which are much closer to in-character exploration: classic Traveller, at least some versions of Runequest and Stormbringer, and even, in a limited way, 3d6 rolled in order.

This is why I see classic Traveller, and even moreso Runequest, as the ultimate simulationist games.

I would make a judgment call on what I think the pirate would do. What got him into this? What are his motivations? What kind of man is he? Then, I'd decide on how he'd react. If it's something he'd consider, then he'd be willing to negotiate. If it's something he'd love to do, he'd accept. It just depends.

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.

I know basically nothing about this NPC. He entered my session planning as combat stats adopted from (I think) the 4e MM2 human knife fighter. In the course of the combat, he ended up being betrayed by the cleric who had hired him (I can't remember the details, but I do know he took a swipe at the cleric with his dagger), before escaping across the rooves of the town (with good Acro and Athletics).

In the circumstances, it's essentially arbitrary, relative to the already-established fiction (and even the "secretly established fiction" in my GM's notes), what this NPC would do. In those circumstances, I'm always going to incline towards the player's plan. (Whether I run it as some sort of skill challenge, when the recruitment attempt is eventually made, will depend on the context and circumstances at the time.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's interesting how different people approach the game in different ways.

That it is.

There are some approaches to PC gen which are much closer to in-character exploration: classic Traveller, at least some versions of Runequest and Stormbringer, and even, in a limited way, 3d6 rolled in order.

This is why I see classic Traveller, and even moreso Runequest, as the ultimate simulationist games.

For some games, sure. That's true. I thought we were speaking within the context of 4e, or D&D in general. But, if we're speaking more broadly, that's a valid point.

I know basically nothing about this NPC. He entered my session planning as combat stats adopted from (I think) the 4e MM2 human knife fighter. In the course of the combat, he ended up being betrayed by the cleric who had hired him (I can't remember the details, but I do know he took a swipe at the cleric with his dagger), before escaping across the rooves of the town (with good Acro and Athletics).

In the circumstances, it's essentially arbitrary, relative to the already-established fiction (and even the "secretly established fiction" in my GM's notes), what this NPC would do. In those circumstances, I'm always going to incline towards the player's plan. (Whether I run it as some sort of skill challenge, when the recruitment attempt is eventually made, will depend on the context and circumstances at the time.)

Yep, it's definitely going to be arbitrary. I don't know what it is, but whenever I introduce an NPC, I have a feel for what they are. I can have a group of 10 mercenaries, and I'll have a feel for the group (hardened killers, will do anything for the right price, good-natured battle buddies, etc.), the leader (upbeat guy, sociopath, weight-of-the-world-on-my-shoulders type, etc.), and oftentimes the righthand man (whether he's officially in the position or not). Then, if the group is focused on even further, I instantly and reactively break them down even further. Guy A is a real dick, while Guy B is somewhat apologetic for Guy A, and Guy C likes to tease people or is a prankster. It's just instantaneous as of this point. Maybe that's why I play this way; it'd be hard not to (for me). As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

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.

/snip

In my opinion, no there isn't. If it hasn't come up in play yet, then it doesn't exist anywhere other than maybe the DM's notes. And the DM's notes are subject to change at any point in time. I know that my notes get changed all the time (but never to the point of contracting established facts) as the whim hits me.

So, in any game, traditional or not, unless it's been established in play, it doesn't exist. At least, not IMO.

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.

Sure it does. It has a DM and Rule 0. The DM most certainly can resolve conflicts between two players. As far as it being "harder for many players", that may be true. Again, I'm only talking about my experience, and IME, most of my players have also been DM/GM's. Sometimes we co-DM the same campaign.

So, yes, I implicitly trust that my players know what a good game looks like.

I suppose if I had a table full of newbies, it might be different.

 

[Imaro]

In my opinion, no there isn't. If it hasn't come up in play yet, then it doesn't exist anywhere other than maybe the DM's notes. And the DM's notes are subject to change at any point in time. I know that my notes get changed all the time (but never to the point of contracting established facts) as the whim hits me.

So, in any game, traditional or not, unless it's been established in play, it doesn't exist. At least, not IMO.

That's definitely an interesting, though IMO also limited, stance to have on the subject. I'm curious do you ever do sandbox play? I ask this because it is a whole playstyle where much, if not all of the campaign world is assumed to be created beforehand for the players to explore...How do the sentiments above factor into a game that is centered around exploration? Do your feelings change in such a game as to what is or isn't established... or is it still only in play?

Sure it does. It has a DM and Rule 0. The DM most certainly can resolve conflicts between two players. As far as it being "harder for many players", that may be true. Again, I'm only talking about my experience, and IME, most of my players have also been DM/GM's. Sometimes we co-DM the same campaign.

So, yes, I implicitly trust that my players know what a good game looks like.

I suppose if I had a table full of newbies, it might be different.

So we are back to the DM deciding whose narrative is the "coolest" and thus should "win"... In other words "Mother May I" and all the baggage that style brings with it. Personally I'd rather use a game with actual mechanics to share narrative control, and avoid all that...YMMV of course. I do think that if it was this simple for most then games with specific narrative sharing mechanics wouldn't be as prolific as they are in the gaming community.

 

[BryonD]

One of the reponses I received was the following:

...

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).

I find there is a big difference in what constitutes "narrative control".

Its no secret that I find 4E to presume mutual narrative control in a manner that takes greatly away from the quality of the experience.

But for this specific example I agree completely with the OP.

The way I put it in the other thread was, "characters should only be able to do things that characters in a novel could do."
Well in novels or TV shows the resourceful/knowledgeable archetype knowing a short cut is absolutely not just reasonable, but expected.

Now, if was established that the city in question had a Berlin Wall type feature and the short cut needed to cross over that feature, then, at a minimum, the level of skill (DC or however else you want to look at it) would go way up. And in a case like that an answer of "NO" is not only reasonable, it is highly preferable. But I've added that feature to this example. In the example as given, the shortcut makes absolute sense to me. I embrace that idea.

The other thread was specifically about surges. I agree that this is a different topic. But the point being made was that narrative control which results in wounds vanishing or never being received in the first place IS a bad thing. ("for my style of gaming")

I present that NOT with the intent of reviving surges here, but to present a counter-offer and important context to the origins of this debate.

(A) Short cut across the city is player narrative control. (B) Serious wounds vanishing from a fighter is player narrative control. (C) And angry barbarian suddenly throwing fireballs from his eyes is player narrative control.

There seems to be a presumption that you either accept or reject the idea of player narrative control. I reject that as a false dichotomy.

I suspect that most players agree that (A) is good and (C) is bad. And (B) seems to be in the zone where there are folks on both sides.

 

[BryonD]

So, in any game, traditional or not, unless it's been established in play, it doesn't exist. At least, not IMO.

I strongly disagree with that as a truism.

Frankly, players NOT knowing why some things played out the way they did until the big reveals LATER is one huge avenue for fun.

That isn't to say that the opposite is true. I absolutely wouldn't say never change DM notes. A good DM should take information into account and make good choices at the moment.

But overturning truth that the players just don't happen to know yet should take compelling justification and the idea that having it not previously established makes it automatically not in existence is WAY out of bounds to me.

The first thing the players (and characters) must know is that they don't know everything. And maybe that's my out, but that IS previously established.

 

[Mort]

I find there is a big difference in what constitutes "narrative control".

Its no secret that I find 4E to presume mutual narrative control in a manner that takes greatly away from the quality of the experience.

The designers of 4e went in a directon that really rubs some people the wrong way, I don't think there's even a question that that's true.

For example: there are "non-magic" powers in 4e that allow the player to look at a monster and say "I slide it 3 squares in that direction" - this is something quite a few people just really dislike in their games.

The other thread was specifically about surges. I agree that this is a different topic. But the point being made was that narrative control which results in wounds vanishing or never being received in the first place IS a bad thing. ("for my style of gaming")

I present that NOT with the intent of reviving surges here, but to present a counter-offer and important context to the origins of this debate. .

I'm not going to rehash my utter disagreement with this presentation of healing surges. I will just say that I wish you would not bring that discussion into this thread, even with the supposed qualifier in the last sentence - one of the whole points of a new thread was so people talk about something other than healing surges (I have no wish to yank this thread in that direction)

(A) Short cut across the city is player narrative control. (B) Serious wounds vanishing from a fighter is player narrative control. (C) And angry barbarian suddenly throwing fireballs from his eyes is player narrative control.

There seems to be a presumption that you either accept or reject the idea of player narrative control. I reject that as a false dichotomy.

I suspect that most players agree that (A) is good and (C) is bad. And (B) seems to be in the zone where there are folks on both sides.

Actually per this thread, some people really dislike (A) or at the very least are very uncomfortable with it.

Reading through the thread opinions run a wide spectrum. Some like "some" player narrative control, some like narrative control only in the context of games specifically designed for it, and some hate even the hint of player narrative control.