Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[JamesonCourage]

Well, I hope this thread stays productive. I'd hate to be one-half of a thread that wasn't!

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.

This is where my feathers get ruffled. A successful Knowledge (local) check or the like is rolled, and if it's successful, you get to cut off the other guy. This makes sense to me when there is a different path to take. However, used as a narrative tool, I think it's easily misused and potentially unconsciously abused.

To me, a Knowledge check tells you about the setting, it does not shape it. A very high Knowledge check means that you know a lot about something, whatever it is. It does not mean (to me, at least) that you get to shape the setting based on it. When that's the case, players will begin to use it as such, and "narrative" skills will start to skyrocket in value. People will frequently use their skill checks not to learn and explore the setting, but to "warp reality" to fit their character's convenience.

I put "warp reality" in quotes because it's obviously not doing that to people that utilize these skill checks as narrative devices. Reality was never set, so it is not being warped. However, my group would view it as such, and would be against that implementation.

There's nothing wrong with playing with these skill checks as narrative devices. However, as the goal of my players is to immerse in the setting, they're seeking to explore the setting. Handing them narrative control takes away from a feel of exploration. They aren't finding out something new, they're creating something new. While it might be good enough for some groups (and that's cool with me), it's not good enough for us (in a modern fantasy-genre game).

It's just preference. Immersion is very important to us, and narrative authority and control greatly pulls my players out of immersion, as they address creative meta uses for their abilities and skills. If immersion is nice but takes a quick backseat to a proactively interesting story, I can see the appeal. However, since I run an immersion-first, sandbox-style campaign, the idea of narrative control mechanics for the players works against what we're trying to achieve.

So, again, it's just personal preference. I don't find anything wrong with narrative control from a game theory standpoint (for everyone). I hope I've voiced why it's wrong for my group when we play in a modern fantasy-genre style game. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and I do use mechanics that allow for narrative control for players when I run M&M 2e (Hero Points).

I hope this communicates something productive. Just trying to give a clear depiction of my feelings on the subject. As always, play what you like

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.

I have a section in my Running a Game chapter of my book called "Saying No". I think it's very important. You say, "yes" when it's the right time, and you say, "no" when it's the right time.

See, in games designed around story or the like, I like the mechanics of Drama Points or Hero Points to affect the narrative directly. I enjoy that (as do my players). We don't enjoy it in a modern fantasy-genre game. It's just taste. To us, it takes away from the fun of exploring. If you just made an elf appear, you didn't explore, you authored. That's fine in some situations to us, but it is the opposite of desirable in others.

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.

This isn't how I'd define narrative control. He didn't actually control the narrative. He asked a question, and the focus was moved or clarified. Nothing was changed, added, or subtracted, which is how I'd define it. Perhaps it's just a definition issue that's plaguing us.

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.

Haha, I find this amusing. Our mileage has varied. As always, play what you like

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."

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.

If my player said this, it'd be hoping it's true, not trying to exercise narrative control over the story (he doesn't know the villain is taking the most direct route, and is thus not trying to undermine that with narrative control necessarily). I think the intent is going to differ from group to group (as it has with our two groups). As such, I wouldn't assume the player wanted any more narrative control than if he said, "I'm the leader of the thieves' guild, so chances are pretty good that I can get them on gathering some local information for us." My player would assume it's reasonable based off of the consistency of the setting, and hope that it would turn out to be true. The assumption of narrative control here is an individual group thing, not a base assumption I find obvious.

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the player in the example wanted some form of narrative control. It just depends on the group. As always, play what you like

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

To me, the entire issue comes down to the interpretation of "chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

As I read it, this is simply translated as "Let me roll to see if I know a shortcut and my character can be awesome!" Doing that is well within the mechanics of the character and I don't see any problems with doing that at all, from any standpoint.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, I hope this thread stays productive. I'd hate to be one-half of a thread that wasn't!


This is where my feathers get ruffled. A successful Knowledge (local) check or the like is rolled, and if it's successful, you get to cut off the other guy. This makes sense to me when there is a different path to take. However, used as a narrative tool, I think it's easily misused and potentially unconsciously abused.

To me, a Knowledge check tells you about the setting, it does not shape it. A very high Knowledge check means that you know a lot about something, whatever it is. It does not mean (to me, at least) that you get to shape the setting based on it. When that's the case, players will begin to use it as such, and "narrative" skills will start to skyrocket in value. People will frequently use their skill checks not to learn and explore the setting, but to "warp reality" to fit their character's convenience.

I put "warp reality" in quotes because it's obviously not doing that to people that utilize these skill checks as narrative devices. Reality was never set, so it is not being warped. However, my group would view it as such, and would be against that implementation.

There's nothing wrong with playing with these skill checks as narrative devices. However, as the goal of my players is to immerse in the setting, they're seeking to explore the setting. Handing them narrative control takes away from a feel of exploration. They aren't finding out something new, they're creating something new. While it might be good enough for some groups (and that's cool with me), it's not good enough for us (in a modern fantasy-genre game).

It's just preference. Immersion is very important to us, and narrative authority and control greatly pulls my players out of immersion, as they address creative meta uses for their abilities and skills. If immersion is nice but takes a quick backseat to a proactively interesting story, I can see the appeal. However, since I run an immersion-first, sandbox-style campaign, the idea of narrative control mechanics for the players works against what we're trying to achieve.

So, again, it's just personal preference. I don't find anything wrong with narrative control from a game theory standpoint (for everyone). I hope I've voiced why it's wrong for my group when we play in a modern fantasy-genre style game. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and I do use mechanics that allow for narrative control for players when I run M&M 2e (Hero Points).

I hope this communicates something productive. Just trying to give a clear depiction of my feelings on the subject. As always, play what you like

I don't agree that it "warps reality". If I give an undefined value definition, that isn't a warping but rather a definition of reality.

I agree that if the DM has set the definition of the villain's route as the absolute quickest possible, then the best a Knowledge check can do is tell the player that that is the case. However, if the villain just ran down a busy road in a bustling city, my bull meter is going to go off if the DM tells me that. If the DM shuts a good idea down just because he feels like it, he's railroading.

I'm not saying that the DM should change reality to suit the whims of the players. What I am saying is that anything undefined should be subject to reasonable definition, in whole or in part, by the needs of the players.

A player shouldn't be able to use knowledge to walk around a corner and find a holy avenger. He should, however, be able to use it to learn the last known location of a holy avenger (unless holy avengers don't exist in your game).

In the given example, unless the villain is using the objectively best route possible (unlikely), the PCs should be allowed a chance to think of a better route. The better route doesn't have to guarantee their success, but it should give them a chance if that seems possible.

Have your players never asked you if there's a rock nearby that they can pick up? If so, they've participated in the creative process whether they realize it or not. Assuming you said yes, where once there was only the ether of imagination now there is an (imaginary) rock. Players constantly help to define a game's reality. Have you ever created a "dungeon" intended for frontal assault, and the players sought an alternate means of entry even though you didn't anticipate that possibility? Maybe they looked to you for an answer instead of rolling, but nonetheless they were participating in the shared narrative. Apparently they just prefer that you, not the dice, arbitrate. That's fine; if anything, it speaks to your fairness as a judge.

If the player asks you whether he knows a shorter route, and you say yes (taking into account that he grew up as a thief on the streets of this city) then that's fine by me. If you say no for no reason, that's more of an issue since the request seems feasible. I do prefer dice as a general rule, because I've had the misfortune to play with a bad DM, and I know that at least the dice will be impartial. I've only had one DM who I'd trust 100% to make such calls, but he actually prefers to resolve unknowns using dice.

I'm not saying how shared narrative control should be arbitrated. I'm only putting forth the stance that it should be done fairly, and that sometimes that sadly isn't the case.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't agree that it "warps reality". If I give an undefined value definition, that isn't a warping but rather a definition of reality.

I feel I addressed this:

I put "warp reality" in quotes because it's obviously not doing that to people that utilize these skill checks as narrative devices. Reality was never set, so it is not being warped. However, my group would view it as such, and would be against that implementation.

I agree that if the DM has set the definition of the villain's route as the absolute quickest possible, then the best a Knowledge check can do is tell the player that that is the case. However, if the villain just ran down a busy road in a bustling city, my bull meter is going to go off if the DM tells me that. If the DM shuts a good idea down just because he feels like it, he's railroading.

I don't think that's railroading, but I don't see the point of it. Then again, I think if he lets a player do something just because he feels like it, I don't see the point of it.

I'm not saying that the DM should change reality to suit the whims of the players. What I am saying is that anything undefined should be subject to reasonable definition, in whole or in part, by the needs of the players.

A player shouldn't be able to use knowledge to walk around a corner and find a holy avenger. He should, however, be able to use it to learn the last known location of a holy avenger (unless holy avengers don't exist in your game).

In the given example, unless the villain is using the objectively best route possible (unlikely), the PCs should be allowed a chance to think of a better route. The better route doesn't have to guarantee their success, but it should give them a chance if that seems possible.

I'm addressing the given example in the original post. Here it is:

The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him. Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain (essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it)?

In the example, it's the best route. You can change it, but it's acknowledged that it's changing the reality of the game world. You don't see it as warping reality, and I understand that. My players (and I) would. It's preference.

Have your players never asked you if there's a rock nearby that they can pick up? If so, they've participated in the creative process whether they realize it or not. Assuming you said yes, where once there was only the ether of imagination now there is an (imaginary) rock. Players constantly help to define a game's reality. Have you ever created a "dungeon" intended for frontal assault, and the players sought an alternate means of entry even though you didn't anticipate that possibility? Maybe they looked to you for an answer instead of rolling, but nonetheless they were participating in the shared narrative. Apparently they just prefer that you, not the dice, arbitrate. That's fine; if anything, it speaks to your fairness as a judge.

I feel I've addressed this, too:

This isn't how I'd define narrative control. He didn't actually control the narrative. He asked a question, and the focus was moved or clarified. Nothing was changed, added, or subtracted, which is how I'd define it. Perhaps it's just a definition issue that's plaguing us.

What you're describing isn't how I'd define "narrative control". You define it differently.

If the player asks you whether he knows a shorter route, and you say yes (taking into account that he grew up as a thief on the streets of this city) then that's fine by me. If you say no for no reason, that's more of an issue since the request seems feasible. I do prefer dice as a general rule, because I've had the misfortune to play with a bad DM, and I know that at least the dice will be impartial. I've only had one DM who I'd trust 100% to make such calls, but he actually prefers to resolve unknowns using dice.

I'd still call for a die roll most of the time, to see if he knows. However, it's not to decide if there is a shorter route. Sometimes, I'll answer yes or no with no roll involved (I have a PC that's currently designing a city, is a master craftsman, and has a 22 Int and an 18 Wis). If he asked, "is there a faster way through the city?", I probably wouldn't make him roll. He designed it, he's incredibly intelligent with a great memory, and it's his profession. He just knows.

I'm not saying how shared narrative control should be arbitrated. I'm only putting forth the stance that it should be done fairly, and that sometimes that sadly isn't the case.

I have no issue with what you're saying here. As always, play what you like

 

[Fanaelialae]

In the example, it's the best route. You can change it, but it's acknowledged that it's changing the reality of the game world. You don't see it as warping reality, and I understand that. My players (and I) would. It's preference.

In the initial example it isn't the best route, only the most direct route shown on the map. Unless it's a more detailed map than any I've ever seen in an rpg, it will fail to account for any number of very realistic factors. Most maps only show major thoroughfares and landmarks. Things like back alley routes, as well as rooftops, sewers, and back yards are all neglected.

If versimilitude is important to you, then it stands to reason that allowing the players to take realistic actions (even those you didn't account for originally) should be important as well.

Saying that something doesn't exist in the campaign until the DM makes it explicitly so seems silly to me. If you forget to mention your Rome-like city's sewer system in you notes, does offal accumulate in the streets until you finally think to map it out? Of course not. Just because your map isn't detailed enough to show every back alley in the city, doesn't that mean no such alleyways exist. Think of the poor ruffians!

If back alleys exist, and the players are clever enough to think to use them, they should be allowed a chance to use them. It doesn't have to (and generally shouldn't) assure success. The back alley route might even have additional complications to deal with, such a band of surly street thugs. However, if it's logically possible, then the players should be allowed to try.

Play styles vary, and I agree that people should play the way they want. I just find it hard to imagine how you play without doing this or completely railroading your players. If you'd described the area in the initial example as a residential district, and the players wanted to cut through the back yards but you hadn't made the map that detailed, what would you do? Tell them that they can't because you don't know whether the layout of that district permits it? Ad lib it? Or are your maps simply detailed down to every last rooftop, tree, park bench, and rock, such that this has never been an issue? Have you really never had to ever improvise anything, because I can't even begin to imagine a game like that.

 

[Hussar]

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.

A counter question: Do the players know if there is a secret passage or not? Has this been previously established in play at all?

If it hasn't, then, from the player's point of view, nothing has changed. There is no "Mother May I" going on here because nothing, again from the player's POV, has been altered. Now, the DM might think, "Hey, that's a cool idea, let's run with that" or he might let the dice decide, or he might veto the whole thing - it's all up to the DM and none of those choices is better than another all of the time. Sometimes it would be fine, other times, not so much.

That all comes down to DM skill.

No one is saying that the players should have final say. What is being said, is that it often makes the players more involved in the game to allow them to default to having a say in what happens, with the DM reserving veto power.

This is where my feathers get ruffled. A successful Knowledge (local) check or the like is rolled, and if it's successful, you get to cut off the other guy. This makes sense to me when there is a different path to take. However, used as a narrative tool, I think it's easily misused and potentially unconsciously abused.

To me, a Knowledge check tells you about the setting, it does not shape it. A very high Knowledge check means that you know a lot about something, whatever it is. It does not mean (to me, at least) that you get to shape the setting based on it. When that's the case, players will begin to use it as such, and "narrative" skills will start to skyrocket in value. People will frequently use their skill checks not to learn and explore the setting, but to "warp reality" to fit their character's convenience.

I put "warp reality" in quotes because it's obviously not doing that to people that utilize these skill checks as narrative devices. Reality was never set, so it is not being warped. However, my group would view it as such, and would be against that implementation

The problem is, again, you're presuming a level of knowledge of the setting on the part of the DM that may not exist. It's pretty easy for the player to ask questions about details that the DM hasn't pre-defined - Is there a short cut, as an example.

How is the answer to that question (Is there a shortcut), either yes or no, not an exploration of the setting?

Now, if things start changing after being established in play, that's a different beastie alltogether. But, since nothing is actually established, the only thing that could be contradicted only exists in the DM's head, there is no changing of reality going on at all from the player's POV.

They are exploring the setting and the DM is guiding that exploration based on what they are looking for.

 

[Nagol]

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.

That's not narrative control; that's the player setting a goal and affecting the game reality through actions taken by his character -- actions that are observed, have consequence, and are within the character's abilities and range of choice. The player did not add to or adjust the reality of the setting -- the character did.

Authorial control would be more like the player saying "That is a stupid test! How about having a REALLY hard to find 'win' state if I roll high enough?" and the DM agreeing.

That change is outside the range of choice of the character and adjusts the reality presented originally by the DM in a way that cannot be attributed to the character.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Having an unalterable map and adamant DM seems awfully, to use a term I hate, railroady to me.

 

[prosfilaes]

In the original scenario, the DM looked down at is map and saw that there wasn't a faster route.

You don't need a full map zoom to know, really. Alleyways as side passages by and large are not faster unless there are extenuating circumstances -- like a meandering road when a straighter path is possible,

I'm not sure that in D&D, the city you're in being (pseudo-)medieval should be considered an extenuating circumstance.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In the initial example it isn't the best route, only the most direct route shown on the map. Unless it's a more detailed map than any I've ever seen in an rpg, it will fail to account for any number of very realistic factors. Most maps only show major thoroughfares and landmarks. Things like back alley routes, as well as rooftops, sewers, and back yards are all neglected.

You're wording here is correct, but you forgot the second area I highlighted. Here it is again:

essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it

If he allows a shortcut, it changes the reality of the game world. Why? Because it's the best route. The context is clear, even if the word "direct" was used. My opinion.

If versimilitude is important to you, then it stands to reason that allowing the players to take realistic actions (even those you didn't account for originally) should be important as well.

Of course.

Saying that something doesn't exist in the campaign until the DM makes it explicitly so seems silly to me.

Good thing I've never said that, then, huh

If you forget to mention your Rome-like city's sewer system in you notes, does offal accumulate in the streets until you finally think to map it out? Of course not. Just because your map isn't detailed enough to show every back alley in the city, doesn't that mean no such alleyways exist. Think of the poor ruffians!

Again, the context of the quote cleared this up nicely in my mind.

If back alleys exist, and the players are clever enough to think to use them, they should be allowed a chance to use them. It doesn't have to (and generally shouldn't) assure success. The back alley route might even have additional complications to deal with, such a band of surly street thugs. However, if it's logically possible, then the players should be allowed to try.

Yep. And as far as I can tell, by the context of the example, it wasn't logically possible.

Play styles vary, and I agree that people should play the way they want. I just find it hard to imagine how you play without doing this or completely railroading your players.

I don't play the way you're describing. No conflicts here

If you'd described the area in the initial example as a residential district, and the players wanted to cut through the back yards but you hadn't made the map that detailed, what would you do? Tell them that they can't because you don't know whether the layout of that district permits it? Ad lib it? Or are your maps simply detailed down to every last rooftop, tree, park bench, and rock, such that this has never been an issue? Have you really never had to ever improvise anything, because I can't even begin to imagine a game like that.

I don't use city maps, dungeon maps, etc. I only use a regional or continental map. So, I adlib. However, I did say:

I'm addressing the given example in the original post.

As always, play what you like

The problem is, again, you're presuming a level of knowledge of the setting on the part of the DM that may not exist.

I was commenting on the example, in which the path was clearly defined (the path and the map were already accounted for).

It's pretty easy for the player to ask questions about details that the DM hasn't pre-defined - Is there a short cut, as an example.

How is the answer to that question (Is there a shortcut), either yes or no, not an exploration of the setting?

It is an exploration of the setting. I said that players exercising narrative control by making things real in-game is bypassing exploration of the setting.

Now, if things start changing after being established in play, that's a different beastie alltogether. But, since nothing is actually established, the only thing that could be contradicted only exists in the DM's head, there is no changing of reality going on at all from the player's POV.

True. This is where I mentioned illusionism and the social contract, and where I explained why I put "warp reality" in quotes.

They are exploring the setting and the DM is guiding that exploration based on what they are looking for.

If they ask about an ally, yes, it's exploring. If they have the authority to make one, then no, it's not exploring. Just my opinion. As always, play what you like

Having an unalterable map and adamant DM seems awfully, to use a term I hate, railroady to me.

The unalterable map seems like setting to me. Having a GM that is "adamant" might be railroady, but if it's to contain the internal consistency of the world -even outside of the player's eyes- that's not railroady to me. And, like I've said, my group would feel I cheated to make things easier for them if I "fudged" the map in their favor. As always, play what you like