I'm not assuming either thing. I'm simply stating what I take to be ideal in RPG design, and indicating how one well-known mechanic which is at least somewhat relevant to the topic at hand aims at achieving that ideal.
Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?
- Thread starter Mort
- Start date
Well, what are _you_ arguing for?
I responded to a particular statement you made that I didn't agree with. I never even looked at the initial premise.
Well, at least it offers more freedom than your approach
I agree!
Yup. All of this is just theorizing anyway. I'm pretty sure you're just as experienced in recognizing when when your players are engaged and when they're starting to get bored as I am.
My point is simply that no map is ever perfect. It's quite likely that I'm using 'the wrong map' simply because I couldn't find any 'right' map.
I'd like to note that I didn't actually disagree with anything in your post that included the map. I just used your map as an example to make a point.
Cheers!
Edit:
This thread's subject asks: Is giving players narrative control good, bad, or indifferent?
In my experience the answer is a resounding 'good.' I can see why it doesn't work for every DM or group, but for our group it works very well indeed.
I've not been DMing like this from the start, it's a style I improved and perfected over the years.
It's perfect for me as a DM because it means I don't have to spend as much time preparing for a scenario as I used to.
It also means that the risk of preparing something that never gets used is greatly reduced.
It's perfect for my players because it offers them more freedom than playing through a fixed scenario would give them.
They get to participate in developing the setting and shaping the storyline.
Right now I'm just a player and one of my former players is DMing. And I'm really glad he's adopted the same style to a large degree
(currently he's preparing more than I used to but also once had to dismiss a large part because of our actions).
I've never had the feeling we were being railroaded into anything and his decisions don't feel arbitrary to me.
He's obviously making an effort to keep the game challenging and fun for everyone and so far he's succeeding.
What more could I wish for?
Last edited:
Imaro
Legend
My mistake. Now that I understand the purpose of your post I can agree that SC are pretty good at this... Though as this thread has highlighted for certain playstyles SC can be less than ideal in their implementation.
One example of this is that, in general, the SC don't take into consideration the skills of an NPC and thus aren't ideal for a simulationist style such as that suggested by Janx.
Last edited:
Imaro
Legend
That neither is good or bad but tools for a GM to use in order to create a satisfactory game for the players and GM's.
What I am arguing against is one-true-wayism and automatically discounting one particularly style automatically instead of keeping it in your toolbox and using it when it would create a better gaming experience. It is unnecessarily limiting for a GM to arbitrartily discount one style as opposed to another instead of using them as as the tools they are... at least IMO.
I'll go back and check but I don't think I ever made a statement about turning the adventure into a pre-scripted railroad (that's been the assumption you've pushed and tried to assert since earlier in the discussion... one which has been continuously debunked as an extreme view and not a logical conclusion given the situation we've been discussing).
Well, at least it offers more freedom than your approach
Too bad "more freedom" is not equivalent to a "better" game.
Your style doesn't necessarily offer more freedom either, I use whichever style compliments the game at the time and I've seen no practical difference in the results of... "I shut down certain options in the moment" vs. "I shut down certain options ahead of time.". Both close off options on the decision of thwe GM. Whether either style offers more freedom or not is a function of the particular DM and his own rulings and/or prep.
Dude whatever works for you... I do find it contradictory that you on one hand recognize the style is not universally good yet continue to argue it is better in an objective sense... but whatever, to each his own.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
I think I may have the answer, and it's fairly simple (not short to explain, but simple).
I don't usually say or think that, but in this case I think I might. I've only read up until page 11, btw, so this might have been addressed somewhere already...but I'm pulling from a quote on either page 3 or 4:
The dozens of examples and parsings and defining and re-defining and clarifying of terms from page 3 or 4 through 11 (and likely to this point) all dance around this.
Let's start with the value being defined. In such a case, if the player changes it, they are warping reality. If the distance on a map is 20 miles, the distance is 20 miles.
If the value is undefined, the player might influence it. Are there elves in the marketplace? The DM doesn't know and hasn't defined the value (e.g. this is an elven village or this is a village that is xenophobic about elves) then there needs to be a determination.
Now, the solution:
We are talking about two play style variations, but with a third division in one of these styles.
Style 1: The world "exists". The players do not change defined values. If the value is undefined it is determined not by "it's good to say yes to players" but by what makes sense, perhaps including die rolls to determine. In this style, there is exactly the same chance of an elf being in that marketplace whether the players asked or not. They (and the dm) wouldn't have known about it if it had not been explored, but the CHANCE is the same. In this case the players do have narrative impact (they determine that there might be an elf in the story), but not narrative control (they don't influence the chance for the elf to be in the marketplace). This is the style I believe @JamesonCourage 's group uses (as does my own when sandboxing but not when playing adventure paths).
Style 2a: The world doesn't "exist". The story and adventure are paramount. Defined values (the map says 20 miles) remain defined. However, when players get inventive with the story by asking for additional details (is there an elf in the marketplace) the DM leans toward saying yes. In this case, players have narrative control (it is contingent on the dm allowing that control, but they do have it). There is a greater chance of the elf being there because they asked and because the dm is handing over some of the story to them. The more likely the DM is to say yes, the more control the players have (and the greater chance that the elf will conveniently be there). They cannot explore an "existant" world in the same manner as style 1, because they have the power to impact the reality of that world. This style is, I believe, the most common style, and the one put forth in the "say yes" or "say yes, but" articles by WotC.
Style 2b: The world doesn't "exist". The story and adventure are paramount. HOWEVER defined values do not remain defined. This can be as simple as "the adventure was supposed to take place in the town to the east, but since the players went west, it's going to happen there, the players don't know the difference". It can also be more extreme of a retcon wherein the story is more exciting if the map is only 10 miles, so it becomes so.
To sum up:
There is something gained (potential story directions) and something else lost (potential world reality) when the world conforms to player controlled narrative. (If there is always conveniently a chandelier to swing on, or a torch to grab off of the wall, or a loose cobblestone right when you need it, it can be great adventure, but feels less real.)
A final thought. This also can be an issue with DM controlled narrative on the fly. If a dm decides, "It would be cool if there was an elf in the market, because player x could benefit." it can rob the players of the feeling of reality as well.
I think the sticking point of this discussion is that people are concerned about DM tyrrany, railroading, and other loaded terms. In reality, that's not what the conversation (as I understand it) is about. The conversation seems to actually be about whether cool stuff happens because "it would be cool if" or if cool stuff happens organically, and if so, more rare (and potentially more cool when it does, because it was cool because it wasn't given that extra nudge from any source outside the game to BE cool).
The discussion, while ostensibly about player control of the narrative seems to be much more about the focus of the experience of the game: is the narrative defined by the story or by an attempt for reality?
Either way is fine, but they are different styles.
As always, play what you like.
I don't usually say or think that, but in this case I think I might. I've only read up until page 11, btw, so this might have been addressed somewhere already...but I'm pulling from a quote on either page 3 or 4:
The dozens of examples and parsings and defining and re-defining and clarifying of terms from page 3 or 4 through 11 (and likely to this point) all dance around this.
Let's start with the value being defined. In such a case, if the player changes it, they are warping reality. If the distance on a map is 20 miles, the distance is 20 miles.
If the value is undefined, the player might influence it. Are there elves in the marketplace? The DM doesn't know and hasn't defined the value (e.g. this is an elven village or this is a village that is xenophobic about elves) then there needs to be a determination.
Now, the solution:
We are talking about two play style variations, but with a third division in one of these styles.
Style 1: The world "exists". The players do not change defined values. If the value is undefined it is determined not by "it's good to say yes to players" but by what makes sense, perhaps including die rolls to determine. In this style, there is exactly the same chance of an elf being in that marketplace whether the players asked or not. They (and the dm) wouldn't have known about it if it had not been explored, but the CHANCE is the same. In this case the players do have narrative impact (they determine that there might be an elf in the story), but not narrative control (they don't influence the chance for the elf to be in the marketplace). This is the style I believe @JamesonCourage 's group uses (as does my own when sandboxing but not when playing adventure paths).
Style 2a: The world doesn't "exist". The story and adventure are paramount. Defined values (the map says 20 miles) remain defined. However, when players get inventive with the story by asking for additional details (is there an elf in the marketplace) the DM leans toward saying yes. In this case, players have narrative control (it is contingent on the dm allowing that control, but they do have it). There is a greater chance of the elf being there because they asked and because the dm is handing over some of the story to them. The more likely the DM is to say yes, the more control the players have (and the greater chance that the elf will conveniently be there). They cannot explore an "existant" world in the same manner as style 1, because they have the power to impact the reality of that world. This style is, I believe, the most common style, and the one put forth in the "say yes" or "say yes, but" articles by WotC.
Style 2b: The world doesn't "exist". The story and adventure are paramount. HOWEVER defined values do not remain defined. This can be as simple as "the adventure was supposed to take place in the town to the east, but since the players went west, it's going to happen there, the players don't know the difference". It can also be more extreme of a retcon wherein the story is more exciting if the map is only 10 miles, so it becomes so.
To sum up:
There is something gained (potential story directions) and something else lost (potential world reality) when the world conforms to player controlled narrative. (If there is always conveniently a chandelier to swing on, or a torch to grab off of the wall, or a loose cobblestone right when you need it, it can be great adventure, but feels less real.)
A final thought. This also can be an issue with DM controlled narrative on the fly. If a dm decides, "It would be cool if there was an elf in the market, because player x could benefit." it can rob the players of the feeling of reality as well.
I think the sticking point of this discussion is that people are concerned about DM tyrrany, railroading, and other loaded terms. In reality, that's not what the conversation (as I understand it) is about. The conversation seems to actually be about whether cool stuff happens because "it would be cool if" or if cool stuff happens organically, and if so, more rare (and potentially more cool when it does, because it was cool because it wasn't given that extra nudge from any source outside the game to BE cool).
The discussion, while ostensibly about player control of the narrative seems to be much more about the focus of the experience of the game: is the narrative defined by the story or by an attempt for reality?
Either way is fine, but they are different styles.
As always, play what you like.
Last edited:
I agree that there can be issue with narrative control. Way upthread LostSoul linked to this blog which discusses some of them - the main issue is the "Czege principle" - that RPGing is unsatisfactory if the same participant is responsible both for framing the challenges, and for resolving them.
But I can also see [MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION]'s point. I've seen many posts and threads with complaints about railroading GMs, GMs who interefere or veto elements of PC backstory, etc. I've not seen very many that complain about the game turning into insipid conch-passing. So while the latter is a genuine risk, I think for many groups it's not a very serious risk. Especially when player narrative control is filtered through a GM (which it will be, in a traditional game) and is filtered via the mechanics (eg BW-style Wise checks, like the Streetwise check to find the shortcut), I don't think too much damage is likely to be done.
Imaro
Legend
That's why earlier I stated that I enjoyed this style of play much more in games with actual mechanics for it than I do in games where the GM's "arbitrary" judgement decides who has the right and who doesn't have the right to exert narrative control...which in all honesty can lead to it's own type of particular railroading where only the ideas that lead to the GM's "cool" story are accepted. I think perhaps this is a less blatant and obvious railroad than most others and may go unnoticed most of the time. However it is still railroading.
I have a theory that a GM is more likely to railroad when he has an outcome written down or held strongly in his mind.
The written down part being easier to prove, and I suspect psychologically compels the GM.
If I just have a dungeon map, and the stats for a bunch of monsters. I may feel free to deploy them and move them around (and actually beginner DMs often make the mistake of leaving the monsters in place as written by this same behavior).
Anyway, I suspect a DM who does not write specific events and outcomes down will tend to be more flexible and less likely to railroad than a GM who does. Somebody should sponsor a study on it.
Imaro
Legend
I disagree... I think the railroading will be more obvious by a DM who writes things down, because there is physical proof to reference. But I think a DM can just as strongly have an outcome in mind and rule to push things in-game to conform with that idea when nothing is written down. The problem is that it's much harder to recognize and prove when it isn't written down than when it is. In the end I believe this is much more of a DM characteristic and choice than it is dependant upon his style of prep. Of course ultimately this is all just theory anyway.
Sure, it's just a theory. But the written word seems to have power.
newbie GMs are known for foolishly running every monster on the dungeon map exactly where they were written. Room 1a has 2 kobolds. Room 2 has a Flumph. Room 3 has 3 orcs. And the GM doesn;t deviate or have the monsters regroup. The monsters literally sit in their room and wait.
I suspect that wandering monster tables may have originated as a means to add variability to the dungeon and mask that behavior to leave things as written, not as common sense might dictate.
A GM who doesn't write down much about planned events, etc, tends to already have an open mind with fewer expectations of outcome. They have notes about stats and places, but plan to wing it on what happens next.
True, they could force something, and nobody could prove it. But they have a leg up psychologically over the over-noted DM.
Also, worth noting, a study was done where subjects had to write a paper about a position they opposed. Statistically, they found that the subjects opinion had changed to favor what the position they wrote about. (no, I don't have a link, but I read about it online, so it must be true).
My theory certainly drove my advice to you on "don't write down that the NPC took the best route." Because I feel it's risky.
Similar Threads
