Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Fanaelialae]

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.

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?

I don't see it that way at all.


Was there a shorter route? Not on the map.

Is there a shorter route now? Still not on the map, but if the check is high enough why shouldn't the player know a secret shortcut?


In my opinion, it isn't even really about letting players run the narrative. It's about using the dice the way the dice have always been used; to resolve an uncertain situation.

If there is literally no logical means for the players to reach the villain's destination before he did, I'd just say no. The fastest possible route is the fastest. However, unless I'm detailing a simplistic cavern or some such, I probably don't have the means to make such a determination without being arbitrary.

A map is static, and only good within a limited scope of detail. Perhaps the city streets are particularly crowded this day, or there's been a carriage accident on that road, and the PC knows a rooftop or sewer route that allows them to bypass traffic. If the villian's path includes turns, perhaps the PC knows a route cutting through shops and private residences that allows them to travel in a straight line. I'd probably require additional checks (like athletics to vault a fence) in the latter case, as obstacles might certainly slow them down as well. Just because you know a potentially faster route doesn't mean you necessarily have the means to take advantage of it.

Simulation is only an approximation. Unless you've determined every event that happens in a city, and every location of every person within that city at every moment, I think it's perfectly fair for the players to ask the DM to let the dice decide instead of forcing them to play through some arbitrary scripted event.

 

[Nagol]

Are you familiar with the Kobayashi Maru scenario?

Yep! and that a perfect example!

Kirk won through his own choices and generating consequences from them as opposed to Kirk's player changing the test to have a victory condition.

 

[Mort]

Yep! and that a perfect example!

Kirk won through his own choices and generating consequences from them as opposed to Kirk's player changing the test to have a victory condition.

A different perspective would be the DM presented option A) lose or option B) lose fully intending the player to lose

The player instead presented option C) win -

and the DM (perhaps making the player roll a programing check etc.) ran with it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As a player, if I ask if I know of a faster route, I'm asking if I know -- not if I can invent one.

It's the same thing.

In traditional rpgs, players create, or help to create, content all the time, by asking the GM questions. "Is there a rock nearby I can throw?" "What's the door made out of?" "What food do they serve in the inn?" It's highy unlikely, and undesirable, that any of this would have been predetermined by the GM. And it would never have been created in play unless the player asked the question. The GM alone isn't creating content, it's the players and GM working together. The questions the players ask are just as important as the answers the GM gives.

Even with content created by random rolls, all those tables so beloved by Gary Gygax, there's a strong player element, because player decision making determines which tables will be rolled on, and how often. If the players decide their characters go to a swamp, and the GM rolls up bullywugs on the random encounter table, then those bullywugs have been created by the players. In fact out of players, random table, and GM, the GM was probably the least important factor.

 

[Hussar]

Yep! and that a perfect example!

Kirk won through his own choices and generating consequences from them as opposed to Kirk's player changing the test to have a victory condition.

Excuse me? Kirk changes the test conditions in order to allow for a winning scenario. This is PRECISELY what we're talking about.

Player of Kirk: So, let me get this straight. I have to take this test and it's unwinnable?
DM: Yup.
Player of Kirk: Ok, bugger that. I'm going to change the test parameters. How do I do that?
DM: (Thinks for a moment because he hadn't considered the possibility) Well, make a Computer Monkeybusiness check.
PoK: Wow, a critical success.
DM: Ok, you change the test parameters.

The point is, the test parameters were set in stone until such time as the player decided to see if he could change them. The player's actions set about changes in the game's scenario. This happens all the time.

Unless your game is 100% prepped with all possible contingencies mapped out, there will always be DM ad libbing. And that ad libbing will, at the very least, be initiated at the prompting of the player. Sure, the player cannot dictate things (at least not always - some systems do allow for it), but even in the most static of systems, the DM is still constantly going to have to introduce elements based on player suggestions.

Anything else and you're playing a video game.

 

[Umbran]

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.

There's a significant chunk of wisdom in not over-specifying. Is there a significant need to plot out the *exact* route the bad guy was taking beforehand? If not, then don't do it. This leaves you room to flex when the players come up with reasonable suggestions.

 

[Niccodaemus]

There's a significant chunk of wisdom in not over-specifying. Is there a significant need to plot out the *exact* route the bad guy was taking beforehand? If not, then don't do it. This leaves you room to flex when the players come up with reasonable suggestions.

Yep. Use broad strokes and sketch as much as possible. Fill in detail only as required.

Any campaign world played by different players should be virtually unrecognizable.

Same goes for the players playing the same world twice from scratch.

 

[Imaro]

You know the more I think about this, the more I feel the "slippery slope" question is actually important to this discussion and shouldn't necessarily be skipped over...

So I'm curious of those people claiming that you should keep things vague and open... does this always apply. I mean if you've mapped out a dungeon and a player wants to find a forgotten cavern that leads to the end of it... do you let him? Or do you just never have anything that is concerretely defined in the world? If not how do you dedcide what is and what isn't open to narrative control by the players, and how do you communicate this to them?

As to my own preferences, I tend to prefer this only in games with explicit mechanics that facilitate it (like drama points in Angel or Survival Points in Dead of Night)... because the cost, extent and limitations of narrative control are defined and the players know up front what they can and can't accomplish with narrative control (as well as everyone being on the same page as far as this is concerned.). I feel like when this is done with games like D&D you are either playing "Mother may I" with the GM and his expectations of what's reasonable for you to change...and/or existing in a world where things are not solidly defined.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interesting responses so far. While I still don't like playing in games where players have narrative control I do think this thread shows how split people are on the issue and a GM is wise to know his players preferences before placing this on or taking it off the table.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You know the more I think about this, the more I feel the "slippery slope" question is actually important to this discussion and shouldn't necessarily be skipped over...

So I'm curious of those people claiming that you should keep things vague and open... does this always apply. I mean if you've mapped out a dungeon and a player wants to find a forgotten cavern that leads to the end of it... do you let him? Or do you just never have anything that is concerretely defined in the world? If not how do you dedcide what is and what isn't open to narrative control by the players, and how do you communicate this to them?

I take events that have happened as canon and do my best to abide by them. But as to future plans, I have only a very few things that are set in stone and I will not change, simply to give cohesion to the campaign. I can and have made radical changes to campaigns based on what happens at the table.

As an easy example, I had a plot in mind that involved teleportation and we had a mishap. I improvised a logical location for them to land and we played two more sessions that were in a place I never planned for them to be. I took characters they would have met anyway and inserted them into the new location, but the actual events that took place were very different from my (very detailed) plan.

How do I communicate my style to the players? I don't, really. I tell them a lot about what goes into a game, but during play it's up to them to figure out what can and cannot happen. Realistically, many of these player-initiated ideas are doomed to failure anyway. What if the player fails his check? This whole issue is moot.