Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[The Shaman]

Swimming?

Slower than walking and pulls you downstream past the Louvre.

Jumping really far?

No one in the setting has the legs to jump from one side of the Seine to the other. Even on horseback.

Grabbing a small boat and paddling across the river?

Slower than running or jogging and probably walking as well, unless you're a sculling champion with a racing shell.

There's three ways off the top of my head that I can get a faster route.

And they are all options that the rules of the game regarding movement indicate are slower than simply crossing Pont-Neuf on foot.

Fact of the setting.

 

[The Shaman]

But for some reason those who don't like railroading GMs, or who want something other than classic Gygaxian play, seem to come online and complain about it rather than go and find something else!

Indeed. I think it would be hard to argue against the notion that, with respect to the diversity of options available to gamers, this is anything but a golden age of roleplaying games.

More seriously - in setting up your situations, how much regard to you pay to the particular concerns/interests of your players as manifested through their PCs? I get the impression from your posts that you mostly have regard to genre considerations and leave it to the players to seek out their own situations, but sometimes (I'm guessing) you thrust situations upon them.

Sure, that's part of running a reactive sandbox setting. The adventurers brush up against the webs, and the spiders come out to see who's ringing the dinner bell.

In those cases, do you exercise GM control on the spot, or do you rely on your random tables and other prior prep?

Usually it's a combination of prior prep and randomization - the Mythic emulator makes that easier and more interesting than ever - but occasionally situations just lend themselves to a logical response.

Frex, a couple of the adventurers visited a tavern. They searched for a guy who looked like he was someone of importance - I hadn't planned anyone, so I rolled on a random encounter table to get a sense of who that might be, and it came up as a Master Gambler. I quickly adlibbed that he was an ex officio leader among the dockhands on the quays of Grenoble as well as an accomplished gambler. One of the adventurers, the doctor, decided to sidle up behind him, to observe him for a bit before approaching him. This meant the doctor was now looking over the shoulder of a card player and I decided, without recourse to the dice, that this provoked a reaction from the dockhands at the table, and two of them positioned themselves on either side of the doctor.

I then rolled a reaction roll to gauge the reaction by the dockhands and the gambler: the dockhands came up "unreceptive," while the gambler was "interested." One of the dockhands growled at the doctor, "Are you getting a good enough view of the cards?" and the doctor replied that he was trying to learn more about playing the game. The gambler then motioned him to a chair and said, "Okay, show us what you learned."

So, a mix of random rolls and 'if x, then y.'

 

[pemerton]

So, a mix of random rolls and 'if x, then y.'

Good stuff.

 

[Jhaelen]

Where did I claim this? Seriuously, when have I throughout this entire conversation stated that one approach is "good" and the other is "bad"? I haven't... I have in fact argued against you making that claim... please don't mis-state my stance after I've posted it numerous times in this thread.

All right, after carefully rereading your posts it seems that you haven't.

Apparently, I only got that impression because whenever I was pointing out something about my preferred approach that I consider better than the alternative you argued that it actually wasn't.

But you've been quite careful not to call either approach universally good or bad, so my apologies.

Did you decide that because it leads to the outcome you as DM want? If you did, regardless of what traipings you threw on top of it... isn't that what railroading is?

Okay, back to a bit of hyperbole:

Since my desired outcome as a DM is that I want everyone to have a challenging but fun session and like to reward cool ideas and exceptional dice rolls, yes, I admit it, I must have been railroading my players all the time

(Slightly) more seriously: I always assumed that for railroading to happen you first have to lay down rails, otherwise it's just 'roading', isn't it?

Back to my example dungeon with the two factions: If my desired outcome was that the pcs allied with the orcs, why should I make it more difficult for them than allying with the hob-goblins? And why should I allow for them to ally with the hob-goblins at all?

Somewhat frighteningly, something The Shaman posted above describes quite accurately what I've been trying to illustrate with my example:

Typically that means I have a place, I have characters, I have a conflict, and I have motivations; what I don't have is an expected or desired outcome beyond presenting the players and their characters with choices to make.

Now, to be honest, since I know my players quite well, I'm usually good at guessing how they'll react given certain choices. But sometimes they surprise me - and that's something I like - a lot!

So, when preparing for a session, I concentrate on outcomes I consider likely. For my example that means, I'd first make sure to be prepared for them not trying to ally with either faction.
The next most likely outcome would be that they try to ally with the hob-goblins and the least likely that they try to ally with the orcs.

So, I'd have combat stat-blocks ready for both factions, and I've thought about parameters that have to be met for either of the factions to become allies.

Actually, there's a fourth option that's even less likely: They might try to ally with both factions, effectively working to achieve a truce (or even more insidious: to convince both sides to engage in an all-out confrontation against each other!).

And that's an example for an option that would in my opinion trivialize the adventure, so the best outcome they could hope for is for the truce (or the all-out battle) to last for a very short while, i.e. not long enough for them to achieve their objective and get away again in complete safety.

So, while I don't have a desired outcome at least there is an outcome I _don't_ desire: I don't want them to succeed without having to engage in at least a single combat encounter!

Note, that if we were playing a different rpg system than D&D, I wouldn't mind even that.
But D&D without combat is like stale beer - not something I care about!

I'm sure there's even more options I haven't listed above, but apart from them avoiding the whole adventure setup I trust in my ability to wing it, supported by everything I've prepared for this and previous sessions.

 

[Janx]

Actually, there's a fourth option that's even less likely: They might try to ally with both factions, effectively working to achieve a truce (or even more insidious: to convince both sides to engage in an all-out confrontation against each other!).

And that's an example for an option that would in my opinion trivialize the adventure, so the best outcome they could hope for is for the truce (or the all-out battle) to last for a very short while, i.e. not long enough for them to achieve their objective and get away again in complete safety.

So, while I don't have a desired outcome at least there is an outcome I _don't_ desire: I don't want them to succeed without having to engage in at least a single combat encounter!

Note, that if we were playing a different rpg system than D&D, I wouldn't mind even that.
But D&D without combat is like stale beer - not something I care about!

I'm sure there's even more options I haven't listed above, but apart from them avoiding the whole adventure setup I trust in my ability to wing it, supported by everything I've prepared for this and previous sessions.

Something to ponder, Imaro also concieved in his talk about the Chase, that he did not want a shortcut to bypass the challenge.

Effectively, both of you have an interest in having some content not be bypassable or trivialized such that one idea makes the whole problem simple to solve (thus cutting 4 hours of content to 1 hour?).

I think it might be a mistake to want to thwart that path if it is valid. But it may be wise to make that path interesting if the players go down it.

So, don't say "there's no shortcut" if you think that'll kill all the fun stuff you had planned. Don't say the orcs and hobs won't go to war against each other or sign a truce if the PCs try.

If you didn't think of that possibility during planning, do the applicable skill checks, spice it up if you can, but if they make it, let it work. Because the players outsmarted the GM and they should not be punished for it. (or, if you can adlib, do what the next paragraph says)

If you do think of the possibility, then plan some content to make that path interesting as well. Maybe some extra skill checks or drama or complications. Not with the intent to make it fail, but to provide some challenge and fun if things go that way.

That means, during the planning of a chase, if you think "they might want to take a shortcut", then look at the map, draw in the shortcut path, and plan some challenges along that route.
If you think they might try to broker a full peace or redirect both sides against each other and watch, make some notes about the outcome of such a possibility. maybe the 2 tribes unify too well and actually go on a bigger campaign of war. Maybe it takes a lot more diplomacy and treachery drama as both sides are "trying" to broker a deal with the PCs and a neutral party, and internal factions to both tribes are trying to sabotage it (go hunt down a ST:TNG episode, I'm sure there's a few along this theme).

The "I Win" button should lead to the next Challenge. Not fretting that they just bypassed all your notes and it was too easy. There's lots of things I do at work that others struggle to solve that I find the "I Win" button to solve. My bosses don't go shutting that down to make it harder for me. They give me a cookie and hand me the next problem to solve.

 

[Jhaelen]

Effectively, both of you have an interest in having some content not be bypassable or trivialized such that one idea makes the whole problem simple to solve (thus cutting 4 hours of content to 1 hour?).

Yup. In our group individual sessions last a long time. We meet on average only once a month, but when we meet it's 10 - 12 hours of gameplay! If I'd let them get away bypassing a whole session's content, there wouldn't be a lot left to do, except a few 'random' encounters and preparing for the next major event in the campaign.

So, don't say "there's no shortcut" if you think that'll kill all the fun stuff you had planned. Don't say the orcs and hobs won't go to war against each other or sign a truce if the PCs try.

That isn't what I meant: I would let it work, but only for a while. E.g. they'd bypass several smaller scale encounters in exchange for a single larger scale encounter. They'll still save time, probably have an easier time, all things considered, and are likely to gain a greater reward.

If you think they might try to broker a full peace or redirect both sides against each other and watch, make some notes about the outcome of such a possibility. maybe the 2 tribes unify too well and actually go on a bigger campaign of war.

Two things:
First, I don't like to prepare too much for outcomes I consider too unlikely (as mentioned, knowing my players, they're much more likely to not ally with anyone).
The whole point of leaving key things open when preparing is to be able to adjust the adventure during play to deal with the unexpected (see below).

Second: The presented scenario isn't fleshed out. It's a hypothetical scenario I presented to illustrate my point. In a real scenario there'd be an important goal to be achieved by entering the dungeon or a crucial mcguffin to be gained and I'd have a better idea about the situation as a whole.

In a campaign, every action of the pcs will have consequences. So, yes, if they managed to achieve a lasting truce between the two factions it would likely change the balance of power in the area. Likewise, if the factions destroy themselves, they'll leave a power void that is likely to be filled by a third faction.
But that is outside the scope of this isolated scenario.

What I consider one of the big advantages of my approach is that I'm usually able to control very well, how far we'll get in a session. Here's where the aspect comes in that The Shaman would hate so much if he could conjure such a strong feeling over something like gaming

Say, the above scenario was about finding a McGuffin that is hidden somewhere in the dungeon. What I might do is the following:
When preparing for the session I'd decide on a couple of likely places where it might be found:
- the hob-goblin's treasure chamber
- the orcs' treasure chamber
- a secret chamber unknown to either faction

Now depending on what my players do, I'll decide during play where it actually is. E.g. if they ally with the hob-goblins, I might decide, it's in the orcs' treasure chamber, and vice-versa.
If I should find that I have misjudged and they have a too easy time, I might do it the other way around. If they find the secret chamber too early, instead of the McGuffin they might find a potent magic item instead. Alternatively, they actually do find it, but are then hunted by one or both factions.

So, these decisions are influenced by
- the pcs' actions
- the challenges so far
- the time left to play

Ideally, using this approach I end up having sessions that always have a good mix of challenges, combat and otherwise, and come to a satisfying conclusion (or less often end in a cliffhanger).
So maybe this is my invisible railroad: Trying to reach a railway station after each session?!

In over seven years, this has worked in all but one or two sessions, which is considerably better than with any other DMing approach I've tried.

It may not be for everyone, but it's ideal for groups in a similar situation as ours.

 

[Hussar]

Slower than walking and pulls you downstream past the Louvre.No one in the setting has the legs to jump from one side of the Seine to the other. Even on horseback.Slower than running or jogging and probably walking as well, unless you're a sculling champion with a racing shell.And they are all options that the rules of the game regarding movement indicate are slower than simply crossing Pont-Neuf on foot.

Fact of the setting.

My comments were meant to be facetious but, I'd point out that it depends on where people are going. I haven't actually looked at the map, so, I wasn't being all that serious.

But, while it's true that you have only certain points where you can cross the river on foot, I would think that rowing across should be faster than someone on foot. Particuarlarly if you're trying to catch someone who is on the other side of the river already.

It's really going to depend on the situation.

My point actually was, that while there may be fixed points where you can cross the river, presuming that those are always the fastest, and actually dictating that those can only be the fastest way ever isn't how I DM.

Then again, I have no problems with playing fairly fast and loose with setting. It's just not that important to me. Pacing of the situation, actually getting on with the action, and that sort of thing is far more important to me than really trying to work out how far someone would drift down the river while swimming across it. Just not my cup of tea.