Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Imaro]

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.

I understand adapting the future and that the past is set... but I'm moreso asking about the present. How do you handle things in the here and now? taking the dungeon example above... would you allow a 4e character to make a Dungeoneering check to create that passage to the last room?

 

[Supergyro]

Another tack

I call it 'Schroedinger's law of gaming'.

It doesn't exist until the players observe it.

Maps are changable, worlds are changable, up until the players observe something. Giving the players a little narrative control makes it more fun for them, allows one to build the world around the characters, much fun is had by all. Moreover, this doesn't truly with conflict with anything due to Schroedinger's law of gaming.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I understand adapting the future and that the past is set... but I'm moreso asking about the present. How do you handle things in the here and now? taking the dungeon example above... would you allow a 4e character to make a Dungeoneering check to create that passage to the last room?

I didn't address that example because it's foreign to me-I don't really use maps, dungeons, or the rules you're referring to. That being said, let me think about it.

Is the dungeon's structure fundamental to the game? Does it matter if I change it? Do I want the players to be challenged by the dungeon's constituents? For me, I've used only a few sets of underground passages, they've usually been pretty linear, and they're usually just scenery, so I'd say changing it doesn't matter. Your mileage may vary.

There's also the realism issue. What is this "dungeon"? Who built it and what for? Depending on the answer, it may be plausible that a secret passage exists (given that most people don't enjoy facing their own traps and monsters) or not (if the dungeon is not intended to be traversed easily by anyone). As the DM, I know which it is (or I decide when needed). If the former scenario is true, a high-rolling player gets the logical outcome, a hint that there is a shortcut. If the latter is true, a high-rolling player gets the logical outcome, a hint that the road ahead is likely to be tough and that there is unlikely to be a shortcut. Would I allow a player to "create" a passage with such a skill? No. Only to remind me that such a passage could exist if the circumstances justify it.


A counterexample:
A party is traveling through the wilds. They are ambushed at night by a force they decide is an overwhelming threat. Thus, instead of fighting as the DM intended, a player decides to shoot a fireball 400+40 ft./level into the air as a distress signal, hoping that help will come.

Has the DM statted up a force of allies? No. Could creatures exist that might see the signal? Sure. In fact, it would almost be stranger to think that no such creatures exist, given how D&D wilderness terrain is so heavily populated.

---

In circumstances like thus, I roll a percentile, and set arbitrary standards the same way one sets a DC. A high result means that I improvise allies. A low result means that I improvise hostiles. A medium result means they just wasted a fireball. In no case did the players "create" a creature, but they nonetheless excercised a form of narrative control.

Would the creature have been there if the player hadn't sent up a flare? That's the kind of question I leave to philosophers.

 

[billd91]

I think it really depends on how narrative control is given. I like games that give players ways to affect their successes regardless of what the die says. Players can take Action points from Unearthed Arcana and make one result they don't like into one they like at least a little better or even regenerate some resources they might otherwise be expending. I like the hero points in Mutants and Masterminds that do much the same thing. I like a lot of the cards in Torg, though I have yet to see the major subplot cards be used for much more other than extra possibility points in a pinch.

I'm not as much a fan of a player taking over narration in exploring a dungeon and saying that, for instance, there's a bit of treasure or an orc hiding behind a column he's searching around. I'm less a fan of that sort of narrative control being in the hands of the players.

Like Fanaelialae, I don't see a player asking if he can use a skill of his to find a shortcut when pursuing a fleeing NPC as really taking over narrative control. He's still acting within the character's frame of reference. Unless you can see a finish line and a straight line with no obstructions go get to it, I think it's perfectly reasonable to let a players try to find a short cut. I'd even let them choose to try for an easier task or a harder task that might generate better, but more risky, results (which would be asserting some narrative control). There's a great chase scene subsystem that Paizo introduced in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players could take alternative skill checks to try to close the gap, some involved more risk but also had more reward.

 

[Imaro]

I call it 'Schroedinger's law of gaming'.

It doesn't exist until the players observe it.

Maps are changable, worlds are changable, up until the players observe something. Giving the players a little narrative control makes it more fun for them, allows one to build the world around the characters, much fun is had by all. Moreover, this doesn't truly with conflict with anything due to Schroedinger's law of gaming.

You do realize that some players don't necessarily enjoy narrative control and it doesn't create a better game for them.

They may enjoy experiencing the world that the GM created or not enjoy stepping outside of their characters view point in order to use meta-game mechanics. In other words I would be careful when generalizing about what is "more fun".

 

[Janx]

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.

I think it would be improbable or impossible for a GM to fully detail any area, let alone a large area to the finest level of detail for him to KNOW the actual answer if something exists or not at a given point. In short, he has to make stuff up when the players ask.

This in turn ties to the keyword Story that the OP used in the OT. I'm glad it didn't get dragged out, as it's not a Story issue. It's an information issue, which is the same problem for a sandbox GM who eschews story. In fact, one could argue, that the more detail the GM plans out, the greater risk of RailRoad behavior could kick in (RRing being a trait of planning to much on how things HAVE to be).

Narrative Control to me is in effect dictating what happens next or what actually exists. Forex, the player saying "I race out into the street after the BBEG. Seeing he's getting away on a horse, I pick up a loose cobblestone and throw it at him. It hits the flank of his horse, and it rears up, throwing him to the ground. I use that to catch up to him and cuff him."

The player invented content (the rock, the horse), dictated what he saw when first leaving the building (BBEG on horse), and dictated the outcome of his rock throwing attempt.

I suppose there's some kind of game where that's OK, but in most flavors of D&D:
the GM decides what the players see when they get to the street (BBEG on horse)
the player asks if there's a rock he can throw (GM decides if there's a loose cobblestone)
the player tries to hit the BBEG (attack roll with rock and hits)
the BBEG must make a Ride check (he fails)


players do not have perfect information. Nor are they in control of outcomes. Therefore, everything they say is really a question.
When they ask for a rock or a shortcut, the player is seeking the same information the PC has. Does it exist? They are not creating matter from nothing. They are seeking information.

The GM, lacking details on whether there's a rock in the PC's current square or not, has to determine that. He is always the one creating objects in the game space, not the player. But in his case, he simply does not waste time creating objects he doesn't know he needs (he may very well have never thought the PCs would be chasing the BBEG in the street, let alone needing to throw a rock because he left his crossbow at the hotel).

If the player asks "Can I throw a rock at him", he's actually seeking a number of details. Is there a viable rock around (and not a useless pebble)? Is the BBEG close enough to hit, or is it pretty obvious he's out of range? A good listener realizes there's more to the question or proposal, and tries to account for it.

In the case of the shortcut, if your map is like mine, as a GM, you might not actually KNOW the answer. So you really do have a choice to decide if it exists or not. If you decide it exists, you might then make the PC do a skill check to see if he knows it.

You could interpret that to mean that it does not exist if the PC does not succeed at that the PC created it. But that's BS. The GM determined the conditions for the PC to know of the shortcut and thus the GM still determined if the short cut exists by way of allowing the check in the first place.

As for documenting and rembering this shortcut? How big a deal is it? The PCs are running from point A to point B. Odds are good, they will never need to run from point A to point B again. Instead, needing to run from B to C or A to D or C to D. This need not be a big deal.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't address that example because it's foreign to me-I don't really use maps, dungeons, or the rules you're referring to. That being said, let me think about it.

Is the dungeon's structure fundamental to the game? Does it matter if I change it? Do I want the players to be challenged by the dungeon's constituents? For me, I've used only a few sets of underground passages, they've usually been pretty linear, and they're usually just scenery, so I'd say changing it doesn't matter. Your mileage may vary.

There's also the realism issue. What is this "dungeon"? Who built it and what for? Depending on the answer, it may be plausible that a secret passage exists (given that most people don't enjoy facing their own traps and monsters) or not (if the dungeon is not intended to be traversed easily by anyone). As the DM, I know which it is (or I decide when needed). If the former scenario is true, a high-rolling player gets the logical outcome, a hint that there is a shortcut. If the latter is true, a high-rolling player gets the logical outcome, a hint that the road ahead is likely to be tough and that there is unlikely to be a shortcut. Would I allow a player to "create" a passage with such a skill? No. Only to remind me that such a passage could exist if the circumstances justify it.


A counterexample:
A party is traveling through the wilds. They are ambushed at night by a force they decide is an overwhelming threat. Thus, instead of fighting as the DM intended, a player decides to shoot a fireball 400+40 ft./level into the air as a distress signal, hoping that help will come.

Has the DM statted up a force of allies? No. Could creatures exist that might see the signal? Sure. In fact, it would almost be stranger to think that no such creatures exist, given how D&D wilderness terrain is so heavily populated.

---

In circumstances like thus, I roll a percentile, and set arbitrary standards the same way one sets a DC. A high result means that I improvise allies. A low result means that I improvise hostiles. A medium result means they just wasted a fireball. In no case did the players "create" a creature, but they nonetheless excercised a form of narrative control.

Would the creature have been there if the player hadn't sent up a flare? That's the kind of question I leave to philosophers.

I find your example kind of strange... in fact I almost don't consider that narrative control because the PC's did not in fact create anything in the narrative, you did in response to their actions in character. See to me handing over authorial/narrative control to the PC's is allowing them to create or shape something specifically.

I guess I would consider it narrative control if they wanted to roll Nature in order to create/find a tribe of elves in the vicinity of the forest. In this example they are creating something specifically in the narrative and rolling to see if they doi so.

I do not consider it narrative control if the PC's say they want to roll Nature to see if there are any tracks near them... and I as DM decide there are a tribe of elves in the forest and they have found their tracks. In the second example I still created the narrative, they didn't.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

If the player can make a convincing argument for it, or I can think of a logical reason, then I'll let the player roll. Since neither of those is likely to be the true in your scenario, I think this is a bit of a corner case.

Above ground, movement tends to be open unless specifically constrained.

If someone is running along the sidewalk to reach a road that is an L from me, I can try running through the woods behind my house to head him off. I may have to jump a creek and dodge a few tree branches, but a 40' wall shouldn't appear out of nowhere to prevent me from doing so. If I really want to reach an unenclosed area above ground, chances are that I will eventually succeed.

On the other hand, underground movement tends to be logically constrained unless otherwise permitted. I can't walk through the ground to get underground. If I want to go underground, I have to find a hole or a cave. (Let's set aside tunneling, for the moment, as a largely impractical option.) Just because I make an effort to gain access to a bunker, doesn't mean I will succeed.

If I'm in the Dungeon of Irritation, then I know that the players have to pass through the Lavatory of Putridity and the Grotto of Unseemliness to reach the Throne Room of the Dungeon King.
A PC with History might propose to me, "Can I make a roll to see if I know whether the Dungeon King's throne room has an escape tunnel?"
If his check is wildly successful, I might inform him that there is indeed a tunnel, but it isn't inside the dungeon. Additionally, he might be aware that such tunnels weren't designed to be opened from the exit, and that the tunnel contains death traps that only the Dungeon King knew how to disable.
Note that the player doesn't have the authority to dictate the details of the tunnel; he simply has the right to ask if one exists. If I haven't considered the question prior, and it doesn't seem impossible, I let him roll. Because of the uncertainty of the matter.

The players in the aforementioned scenario would have the option to play the dungeon as designed. Alternately, they could leave, search for the secret tunnel, figure out a means by which to open it, and brave the traps within. Just because there's an alternative doesn't mean you have to make it easy on them.

Of course, if the Dungeon King has a phobia of secret tunnels (rebels used an escape tunnel one night to assassinate his father) then it would be illogical for him to have a tunnel and I wouldn't let the player roll.

It's all a matter of what's reasonable and plausible. I've had the misfortune of playing with DMs whose default response was "No", and IMO that's bad DMing.

 

[Janx]

I call it 'Schroedinger's law of gaming'.

It doesn't exist until the players observe it.

Maps are changable, worlds are changable, up until the players observe something. Giving the players a little narrative control makes it more fun for them, allows one to build the world around the characters, much fun is had by all. Moreover, this doesn't truly with conflict with anything due to Schroedinger's law of gaming.

I'm wary of going down that path that all things are undefined. Celebrim had some pretty good reasons on why not. Forex, traps don't exist until the player looks for them being a common annoyance of an ad-libbing DM. Suddenly every room is a trap-fest because the GM didn't think of it until the player asked.

I think it's more like applying Shroedinger and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

The GM cannot know or document all aboslute details. It's too impractical to plan out in square 15,12 that there is 1mm of dust coating it and 2" left and 20" north there is a small ding in the tile where Steve dropped a hammer 20 years prior. and to apply that level of detail to every square of the game.

So, instead, the GM plans out the basics, and relies on winging it (Shroedinger) for the details if he needs it.

 

[Imaro]

If the player can make a convincing argument for it, or I can think of a logical reason, then I'll let the player roll. Since neither of those is likely to be the true in your scenario, I think this is a bit of a corner case.

Above ground, movement tends to be open unless specifically constrained.

If someone is running along the sidewalk to reach a road that is an L from me, I can try running through the woods behind my house to head him off. I may have to jump a creek and dodge a few tree branches, but a 40' wall shouldn't appear out of nowhere to prevent me from doing so. If I really want to reach an unenclosed area above ground, chances are that I will eventually succeed.

On the other hand, underground movement tends to be logically constrained unless otherwise permitted. I can't walk through the ground to get underground. If I want to go underground, I have to find a hole or a cave. (Let's set aside tunneling, for the moment, as a largely impractical option.) Just because I make an effort to gain access to a bunker, doesn't mean I will succeed.

If I'm in the Dungeon of Irritation, then I know that the players have to pass through the Lavatory of Putridity and the Grotto of Unseemliness to reach the Throne Room of the Dungeon King.
A PC with History might propose to me, "Can I make a roll to see if I know whether the Dungeon King's throne room has an escape tunnel?"
If his check is wildly successful, I might inform him that there is indeed a tunnel, but it isn't inside the dungeon. Additionally, he might be aware that such tunnels weren't designed to be opened from the exit, and that the tunnel contains death traps that only the Dungeon King knew how to disable.
Note that the player doesn't have the authority to dictate the details of the tunnel; he simply has the right to ask if one exists. If I haven't considered the question prior, and it doesn't seem impossible, I let him roll. Because of the uncertainty of the matter.

The players in the aforementioned scenario would have the option to play the dungeon as designed. Alternately, they could leave, search for the secret tunnel, figure out a means by which to open it, and brave the traps within. Just because there's an alternative doesn't mean you have to make it easy on them.

Of course, if the Dungeon King has a phobia of secret tunnels (rebels used an escape tunnel one night to assassinate his father) then it would be illogical for him to have a tunnel and I wouldn't let the player roll.

It's all a matter of what's reasonable and plausible...

Yes but as I stated above, this doesn't seem like the DM is handing over narrative control to the PC's... it seems like the PC's are looking for something or searching for something and the GM is deciding, on the spot, whether it is there or not, thuis he is still retaining narrative control. In games with actual narrative control mechanics a PC can actually decide something (within the boundaries of the rules) and the GM doesn't get to decide whether it's there or not, it's details, etc....the player does. They have actual narrative control.

I've had the misfortune of playing with DMs whose default response was "No", and IMO that's bad DMing.

I just realized I wanted to address this as well. As with anything I think a balance is probably the best route... I've seen the "Say Yes" DM's game descend into the realm of implausibility amnd silliness because any and everything is possible.