Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Mort]

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.

You're setting the bar for narrative control awfully high.

In the situation that Hussar presented (or reiterated as it was mentioned before) the DM did not set up or even have a possible win condition - the player created one. That's hard to define as anything other than narrative control.

I suppose you could say when giving the scenario the DM hoped (but did not in any way state, mention, or even hint) that super secret option D (cheat the scenario to a win condition contrary to everything else presented or done before) was available and therefore it was not really player instigation and changing the scenario - but that seems a bit of a stretch.

One complication is that this (player narrative control in the game) is not a black and white issue. There is quite a possible range going on here whith most games falling along the spectrum. I think finding a game where players have 0% narrative control (from a real sense) would be just as rare as a game where players have 100% narrative control (I think such games exist, but D&D certainly doesn't readily support the playstyle).

 

[Mort]

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.

What if it's a question you as DM don't actually know the answer to with certainty? Such that when this player asks "Is there a faster way through the city?" And it's this player whos character actually knows the answer better than either of you, how is that decided?

To stretch the example to its likely limits:

This character has a 22 INT and an 18 WIS so likely knows and remembers
just about all aspects about the city.

He knows the villian is headed by the most direct route to where he needs to go. BUT he also knows that the most direct route is not always the fastest, especially on days when the streetfair is in town (he knows it is town today, this is HIS city). Thus he (and the members of his party at his direction) take a route not hampered by the street fair and catch up to the villain/beat the villain to his destination.

The above can be accomplished in a number of ways from a RP/game perspective:

1) The player wanting to catch the villain tells the DM "I want to catch the villain" and the DM comes up with the above scenario for the player catching the villian. Arguably this does not have the player influencing the narrative at all - except for the fact that the player got exactly what he wanted so there is little difference.

2) The player tells the DM what he wants and the DM has the player make opposing checks with the villain. The player, winning the check, comes up with the above scenario to catch the villian. This is a clear case of the player having at least some control of the narrative.

I'm sure there are others but it's 12:00 a.m. and I should probably be going to bed .

On the flip side: The player (who's character has all of the qualifications mentioned above) asks the DM if there is a quicker route. The DM, looking down at the map decides it's a complete picture and the player is out of luck the villain gets there first and the character knows it. Frankly it is with this answer that I'd feel cheated, because the DM didn't really take all relevant factors into acount just the ones he chose to that likely led to his preferred outcome.

[edit]just to address another issue, in the original example I mentioned looking down at a map - that's true. But it's just a map (that only the DM is looking at currently btw) not some official document with a seal on it that states "this is the one true way, there are no passages, situations, or other circumstances other than what are on this map."
Or to put it another way, I don't think having "a map" is an excuse to limit possibilies for the DM (or the players) - the map is a helpful tool - if it's anything else, it's a crutch.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting discussion (at least the first couple of pages).

I come down pretty hard on the "if there's no shorter route, there's no shorter route" side here. However:

But, the thing is Nagol, it's extremely unlikely the DM will actually have the detail to know the definitive answer to that question. Unless you've mapped your city down to a full zoom Google Maps level, it's virtually impossible to answer that question.

After all, even if you have the major and minor routes on your map, it's unlikely you have all alleyways and whatnot as well.

Personally, every city in my campaign that I have mapped out- which is not many- IS mapped to the level of detail that shows every hill, building, street and alleyway (some even have all the streets named!). So that probably factors into my approach.

 

[JamesonCourage]

What if it's a question you as DM don't actually know the answer to with certainty? Such that when this player asks "Is there a faster way through the city?" And it's this player whos character actually knows the answer better than either of you, how is that decided?

I'd decide, based on my feel for the current situation. In my mind, and in what I've expressed to the players, I'd decide if the path was direct, if there was a faster way, and go with that. It's more of a reflexive answer on my part.

To stretch the example to its likely limits:

This character has a 22 INT and an 18 WIS so likely knows and remembers
just about all aspects about the city.

He knows the villian is headed by the most direct route to where he needs to go. BUT he also knows that the most direct route is not always the fastest, especially on days when the streetfair is in town (he knows it is town today, this is HIS city). Thus he (and the members of his party at his direction) take a route not hampered by the street fair and catch up to the villain/beat the villain to his destination.

This is a distinct possibility.

The above can be accomplished in a number of ways from a RP/game perspective:

1) The player wanting to catch the villain tells the DM "I want to catch the villain" and the DM comes up with the above scenario for the player catching the villian. Arguably this does not have the player influencing the narrative at all - except for the fact that the player got exactly what he wanted so there is little difference.

That's either narrative control on behalf of a player, or a very narrative-based group. Either way, it's going against what my group and our social contract enjoy in a fantasy RPG.

2) The player tells the DM what he wants and the DM has the player make opposing checks with the villain. The player, winning the check, comes up with the above scenario to catch the villian. This is a clear case of the player having at least some control of the narrative.

Our definition of "some" differs

Well, not really. It is only "some". But it's far, far more than we'd want.

I'm sure there are others but it's 12:00 a.m. and I should probably be going to bed .

On the flip side: The player (who's character has all of the qualifications mentioned above) asks the DM if there is a quicker route. The DM, looking down at the map decides it's a complete picture and the player is out of luck the villain gets there first and the character knows it. Frankly it is with this answer that I'd feel cheated, because the DM didn't really take all relevant factors into acount just the ones he chose to that likely led to his preferred outcome.

See, this leads back to the whole "not trusting the GM" thing that I run into occasionally. I think it's precisely because I don't fudge for or against the PCs that my players trust me. I know this will vary from group to group, though. There's definitely no way I'm going to railroad the game. As I've said before, I run a very, very sandbox style game.

[edit]just to address another issue, in the original example I mentioned looking down at a map - that's true. But it's just a map (that only the DM is looking at currently btw) not some official document with a seal on it that states "this is the one true way, there are no passages, situations, or other circumstances other than what are on this map."
Or to put it another way, I don't think having "a map" is an excuse to limit possibilies for the DM (or the players) - the map is a helpful tool - if it's anything else, it's a crutch.

I addressed this:

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 I've said: it's preference. As always, play what you like

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

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

The map is one part of setting, not setting as a whole. The tone and ability for characters to be heroic is also setting. So which element of setting trumps another? I think you make a pretty arbitrary argument here.

As for consistency? Well if anything, it limits the characters ability to be heroic which isn't very consistent in a setting which considers said character to be a hero.

I don't think there is any way around that example. It would be railroady but as you said, if that's your thing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The map is one part of setting, not setting as a whole. The tone and ability for characters to be heroic is also setting. So which element of setting trumps another?

The map.

I think you make a pretty arbitrary argument here.

No, I'm making an argument of taste.

As for consistency? Well if anything, it limits the characters ability to be heroic which isn't very consistent in a setting which considers said character to be a hero.

By that token, so does dying, and missing in combat, and so on. I don't agree with those, nor do I agree that the map must be altered for heroics to be had.

I don't think there is any way around that example. It would be railroady but as you said, if that's your thing.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I'm not trying to convince you to play any way you don't like. As always, play what you like

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

The map.

So setting, to you, is reduced to preordained lines on paper?

No, I'm making an argument of taste.

If that's true, then it's not a very good one.

By that token, so does dying, and missing in combat, and so on. I don't agree with those, nor do I agree that the map must be altered for heroics to be had.

I agree, so does dying and missing in combat which is the main reason why dying and unbalanced PCs have taken a back seat.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I'm not trying to convince you to play any way you don't like. As always, play what you like

I never said you were. I was just making a comment on your reply. You're quick to point out that I should live and let live while asserting why my opinion isn't right and curtailing any response.

Which one do you want me to do? Live and let live or reply to your comment?

 

[pemerton]

My view is that the chase scenario, like a combat, is a conflict and there is nothing objectionable about it being resolved in the same manner as any other conflict ie via the standard action resolution mechanics.

In 4e this would be a skill challenge. The last time I ran such a skill challenge the NPC escaped because the PCs lost control of their warmount (a behemoth captured from some hobgoblins).

 

[JamesonCourage]

So setting, to you, is reduced to preordained lines on paper?

Of course not. Please don't reduce this conversation into hyperbole or an argument. And, if you insist on it, please take it up with someone else.

If that's true, then it's not a very good one.

Are you attacking my taste? Because that'd be amusing.

I agree, so does dying and missing in combat which is the main reason why dying and unbalanced PCs have taken a back seat.

What? I assume you're not in favor of PCs hitting the enemy every attack roll.

I never said you were. I was just making a comment on your reply. You're quick to point out that I should live and let live while asserting why my opinion isn't right and curtailing any response.

... when did I say you're opinion wasn't right? When I said to play what you like? When I said that this is just my opinion? When I said you're entitled to your opinion? When I said it's a matter of taste? When I said it's up to the group and their social contract? I feel like I've been pretty clear that this is my view, and that I'm not trying to convince you to change, nor am I saying that you're wrong.

Which one do you want me to do? Live and let live or reply to your comment?

Out of those two, if that's all you can think of, then live and let live. No need to reply to my comment if you can't do both.

As always, play what you like

My view is that the chase scenario, like a combat, is a conflict and there is nothing objectionable about it being resolved in the same manner as any other conflict ie via the standard action resolution mechanics.

In 4e this would be a skill challenge. The last time I ran such a skill challenge the NPC escaped because the PCs lost control of their warmount (a behemoth captured from some hobgoblins).

This would seem appropriate to me, too. Roll some opposed checks / a skill challenge to see if you catch him. There are different methods, but I'm with you in the basic concept of using the mechanics to solve it. As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

You're setting the bar for narrative control awfully high.

In the situation that Hussar presented (or reiterated as it was mentioned before) the DM did not set up or even have a possible win condition - the player created one. That's hard to define as anything other than narrative control.

I suppose you could say when giving the scenario the DM hoped (but did not in any way state, mention, or even hint) that super secret option D (cheat the scenario to a win condition contrary to everything else presented or done before) was available and therefore it was not really player instigation and changing the scenario - but that seems a bit of a stretch.

One complication is that this (player narrative control in the game) is not a black and white issue. There is quite a possible range going on here whith most games falling along the spectrum. I think finding a game where players have 0% narrative control (from a real sense) would be just as rare as a game where players have 100% narrative control (I think such games exist, but D&D certainly doesn't readily support the playstyle).

The player did not alter the reality. The player examined the reality through his character and chose a goal that, given his skills, location, and purpose, should be accomplishable.

That is character agency.