Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Umbran]

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

In the case presented to us, the player asked for narrative control.

If the player is asking for things he or she doesn't actually want, well, that's a problem beyond what we can expect the GM to handle.

 

[Imaro]

In the case presented to us, the player asked for narrative control.

If the player is asking for things he or she doesn't actually want, well, that's a problem beyond what we can expect the GM to handle.

What "case" the OP was about two opposing view points about narrative control. I in turn was addressing the broad statement made that narrative control is more fun. Not really understanding what point you are trying to make, could you clarify please?

 

[Fanaelialae]

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...the player does. They have actual narrative control.

Yeah, but even in those games (assuming they're playing an ordinary character) they can't just say "I want to flap my arms and fly away." There's always a greater or lesser degree of player narrative control in a good game (IMO). The final say might be left up to the players, the dice or the DM.

If I ask my DM, "Are there any elves in the town square?" and the DM hasn't made a decision beforehand, I'm participating in the narrative process. An undefined variable suddenly requires definition, and therefore must be defined for the game to continue. I might have a Drama Point that allows me to tell the DM that there are elves in the square (automatic success for anything reasonable to the narrative). The DM might decide that it's reasonable and, wanting to see where I go with this, say yes. The DM might remain impartial and roll dice to resolve the matter, or say "You aren't sure, give me a perception check".

The DM can also just say no. This, IMO, most closely mirrors the OP's example. What I'm saying is that, unless the DM has a good justification for doing so, he shouldn't just say no. I'm also saying that, the unfortunate reality is that this is too often the case.

In any of the above cases (even the automatic no), the player has steered the narrative a certain direction, thereby exerting narrative control. Prior to resolving the question, both the players and the DM were unaware as to whether or not there were elves in the square. Afterward, they either know the answer or at least know that they don't know the answer.

To use an analogy, if you're sitting in the driver's seat, I can grab the wheel and exert control. You might have more control than I, but I have some control nonetheless. An RPG is like a car where the DM is in the driver's seat, but all of the passengers also have a hand on the wheel. When the driver and passengers cooperate, you have a nice ride. If they don't, the car will most likely crash. How much control the passengers prefer to exert on the wheel is up to them, but some DMs think that they're the only one driving and that typically results in all kinds of Mary Sue nonsense and other nastiness.

 

[Janx]

In the case presented to us, the player asked for narrative control.

If the player is asking for things he or she doesn't actually want, well, that's a problem beyond what we can expect the GM to handle.

I think the player asked for Information, not narrative control. Sure, it's a loaded question in that you can guess what the player will do next depending on what you answer.

But from the black box of D&D, when a player asks a question, the player is not inherently privy to whether I made it up, already knew the answer, or rolled for it. therefore, the decision is still in the GM's control.

I'm not even sure how any of this is a problem. The PCs want to catch the BBEG. They think of taking a shortcut, so they want to know if that's possible. They are trying to change the natural outcome of BBEG gets away to their preferred outcome of BBEG gets caught.

This is no different from when my BBEG jumps out of the shadows and attacks them. I'm going to kill them because I have a weapon drawn and they don't. The players want to change this natural outcome of TPK to one where they live and the BBEG dies. So they draw weapons, which they assume they are still wearing, and they keep attacking it, which is really a question each round of "did I hurt it?"

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, but even in those games (assuming they're playing an ordinary character) they can't just say "I want to flap my arms and fly away." There's always a greater or lesser degree of player narrative control in a good game (IMO). The final say might be left up to the players, the dice or the DM.

Correct, but what they can create whole cloth is usually defined and the DM is not given veto power over it as long as they pay the appropriate cost. In the examples given it is still very much under the DM's control as he has the final say.

If I ask my DM, "Are there any elves in the town square?" and the DM hasn't made a decision beforehand, I'm participating in the narrative process. An undefined variable suddenly requires definition, and therefore must be defined for the game to continue. I might have a Drama Point that allows me to tell the DM that there are elves in the square (automatic success for anything reasonable to the narrative). The DM might decide that it's reasonable and, wanting to see where I go with this, say yes. The DM might remain impartial and roll dice to resolve the matter, or say "You aren't sure, give me a perception check".

Participating in the narrative and having narrative control are two different things. Just by playing one's character you are participating in the narrative... that does not however equate to narrative control. In your example above if you can tell the DM that the elves are there you have exerted narrative control... other wise you are participating but not controlling the narrartive... the DM ultimately is.

The DM can also just say no. This, IMO, most closely mirrors the OP's example. What I'm saying is that, unless the DM has a good justification for doing so, he shouldn't just say no. I'm also saying that, the unfortunate reality is that this is too often the case.

I think the issue is just where one DM's line of "good justification" is drawn as opposed to another DM's. This also has alot to do with playstyles, genre, etc..

On another note... if a player just wants to roll dice and kill some orcs, he isn't necessarily going to enjoy or even expect to have narrative control... so again, blanketing it in terms of good and bad doesn't seem correct given the nuances involved.

In any of the above cases (even the automatic no), the player has steered the narrative a certain direction, thereby exerting narrative control. Prior to resolving the question, both the players and the DM were unaware as to whether or not there were elves in the square. Afterward, they either know the answer or at least know that they don't know the answer.

Yet ultimately (except in the drama point case) the DM still has narrative control. He can decide or not decide what does and does not exist. The player is involved in the narrative but is not actually controlling it.

use an analogy, if you're sitting in the driver's seat, I can grab the wheel and exert control. You might have more control than I, but I have some control nonetheless. An RPG is like a car where the DM is in the driver's seat, but all of the passengers also have a hand on the wheel. When the driver and passengers cooperate, you have a nice ride. If they don't, the car will most likely crash.

I think your analogy is off. In your example no one has to ask the DM and get permission before grabbing the wheel... yet in the examples of play presented so far that is exactly what is happening. The characters are asking the DM if something exists and the DM ultimately still has the control over the narrative.

How much control the passengers prefer to exert on the wheel is up to them, but some DMs think that they're the only one driving and that typically results in all kinds of Mary Sue nonsense and other nastiness.

This is full of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Being a DM that maintains narrative control in your game does not auto-equate to you being the only one participating or even driving the narrativbe since the PC's still have their character's and their abilities to try and shape the narrative. As to Mary Sue characters... they have nothing to do with whether you invest narrative control in the GM or whether it's shared, that's about a GM choosing to elevate an NPC above his players and can happen regardless of whether the PC's have narrative control or not.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Plot Cards

My group has been using random plot cards as away to govern narrative control. (Although this is not how I have thought of it before reading this thread)

Each session I deal 2 cards to each player, and they get to keep one.
This has allowed them control over a specific plot element, and led to some of the more interesting events in the campaign. It has also led to some problems. In general it has worked well as a limited, but exciting way to pass narrative control between DM and players.

I'm tearing up the on that allows them to say that one NPC was actually someone else in disguise. Both times it was used it add the BBEG into an early session combat, unbalancing that fight and thwarting a more exciting planned battle.

In other cases cards have started a plauge (as a complication to players intention) created an underground dwarven city, and allowed the easy addition of a new PC (a Genasi from the elemental chaos) It also started 2 love affairs and a revolution.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...dex-cards-fly-setting-plot-collaboration.html

 

[Fanaelialae]

Imaro, I think that you and I are working with different definitions of narrative control. I think anytime you participate actively in a narritive you are exerting control.

You seem to think that control equates to having final say. If that were the case though, even Drama Points wouldn't give the players narrative control because the DM can always say no (although he might be discouraged from doing so). After all, the DM can say no to flying by flappng my arms even if I spend a drama point.

The DM always has veto power. That's part of his role. How he uses that power determines his aptitude at that role IMO.

 

[Umbran]

What "case" the OP was about two opposing view points about narrative control.

The "case" I am referring to was an instance of play described to us in the OP:

"The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

I in turn was addressing the broad statement made that narrative control is more fun. Not really understanding what point you are trying to make, could you clarify please?

You'd raised the point that not everyone wants control. And that is true. However, the case that started the discussion has the player actively and willfully stepping up to the plate, where there's no such worry. I was just returning to the original context.

I think the player asked for Information, not narrative control. Sure, it's a loaded question in that you can guess what the player will do next depending on what you answer.

As written, above, it is pretty clearly phrased as an assertion, not a question. If you want to read a question into it, that's fine, but that's an interpretation, not the explicit statement.

When you're talking about whether you know what the player wants, the difference is pretty important. If the player is making assertions about what is the case, that's an attempt to take narrative control. If they are asking questions, then they're leaving the GM with the control of the narrative.

In the described instance, the player was even polite and cooperative about it. "Chances are...," leaves the GM the legitimate option to reject the assertion.

 

[Janx]

As written, above, it is pretty clearly phrased as an assertion, not a question. If you want to read a question into it, that's fine, but that's an interpretation, not the explicit statement.

When you're talking about whether you know what the player wants, the difference is pretty important. If the player is making assertions about what is the case, that's an attempt to take narrative control. If they are asking questions, then they're leaving the GM with the control of the narrative.

In the described instance, the player was even polite and cooperative about it. "Chances are...," leaves the GM the legitimate option to reject the assertion.

As always, it comes down to semantics. As DM of the D&D session (and not another system where the rules may be different), everything the player says is really a question, if nothing else a declaration of intent to attempt if able.

Meaning the DM determines the conditions under which it will happen.

It's no different than saying, "I'm an expert with the sword, chances are I know more than the BBEG does". The GM still determines the outcome (presumably by rolling init and following the combat rules).

For D&D, ideally everything the PC wants to do or try or know should be phrased like a question or broached as an assumption for the PCs thought process like the OP's example.

The annoying mode being "I'm an expert of this city, I take a shortcut to head-off the BBEG."

GMs who have a habit of saying "No." probably learned it from the presumptiveness of this player's phrasing. The very fact the GM can shoot this statement down and prevent that the action took place shows the GM is still retaining narrative control.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think your analogy is off. In your example no one has to ask the DM and get permission before grabbing the wheel... yet in the examples of play presented so far that is exactly what is happening. The characters are asking the DM if something exists and the DM ultimately still has the control over the narrative.



This is full of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Being a DM that maintains narrative control in your game does not auto-equate to you being the only one participating or even driving the narrativbe since the PC's still have their character's and their abilities to try and shape the narrative. As to Mary Sue characters... they have nothing to do with whether you invest narrative control in the GM or whether it's shared, that's about a GM choosing to elevate an NPC above his players and can happen regardless of whether the PC's have narrative control or not.

To elaborate on my previous post (I was posting from my phone), I think it is you who is misunderstanding something about my analogy.

Everyone in the car has a hand on the wheel. The DM may be a 400 lb gorilla, and thereby impossible to be overpower but that doesn't mean that the passengers aren't trying to turn the wheel one way or the other.

If a player tries to take the "there are elves here" exit and the DM forces the car down the "there are no elves here" exit instead, the player has forced a change in the narrative. Whereas before they were Schrodinger's elves, now they are now the elves of null. It may not have been the change the player desired, but it is a change brought about by the player nonetheless. We know something now within the game that we didn't know before. Even the DM can't retcon it down the road without making a mess.

Plenty of mechanics give players narrative control. If I have my fighter attack an orc, the combat rules give me that control. I may or may not succeed, but I've changed the narrative just by trying. Of course, the DM can tell me that I can't attack the orc, but he should have a darn good reason or he's being arbitrary.

Even the DM doesn't have total narrative control. He has veto power, but if my magic user casts magic missile and the DM tells me that my auto-hit magic missiles missed, he'd better have a good reason for vetoing my narrative control. I should be able to make a spellcraft check to determine that my target is protected by a Shield spell, or that it has magic resistance. If my DM's justification is "just because I felt like it" he's cheating and his players have a right to feel slighted.

When you say that some players don't want narrative control, I think what you mean is that players don't want total narrative control. I believe that's true most of the time. If it weren't, the DM's role would be fairly meaningless and the game wouldn't be much of a game. However, I think that the only time players exert no narrative control is when they are being passive observers.

There's a good amount of space between being the audience and being the DM's equal, and that's where I think most players fall. In my experience, players want to be able to contribute to the narrative without necessarily dictating it. I think that a good DM enables his players, without letting them walk all over him.