Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Fanaelialae]

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

If this is the case, I don't see how your complaint about "warped reality" tracks.

If you never use maps, and constantly ad lib, then your campaign's reality is in a constant state of flux. Plenty of things aren't fixed until they are observed (by the PCs). Ad lib is making it up as you go along. You might have guidelines in your head, things you've decided upon beforehand, but plenty of things won't be decided until the players think to ask. Hence, if a player in your campaign asked whether he can cut the villain off by running across the nearby rooftops, I expect you might let him. Perhaps not if the area has been described as a cluster of towers, but probably so if it were a packed group of low houses.

Now, if you have a map of the town and the villain takes off down the main thoroughfare, and your map might allow a faster path if it showed the rooftops (but it isn't that detailed), would you still consider it "warping reality" and ban it out of hand? Would your answer still be the same if we accepted the premise, that you'd probably allow the attempt if there hadn't been a map.

If you were forced to play with a rough map of a tavern (that showed tables but no chairs) and a player wanted his character to pick up a chair and smack someone with it, would you deny him the ability to grab a chair because it isn't on the map? What if, same scenario, you'd already read a flavor text description of patrons sitting on low-backed bar stools?

Personally, I think this just demonstrates your preferred play style. You don't use maps, therefore you haven't had to deal with the issue of a poorly detailed map. I think if you ever do run a module with a poor map, you'll find that forcing the players to cleave to such a poor model of reality will result in a poor game.

 

[wedgeski]

I'm a bit bemused by this conversation. According to some definitions here, it seems to that asking things like: "Can I roll Streetwise to find a vendor who'll give me good coin for these scriptures?" or "Can I find a navigator who knows these shores better than the Dread Pirate Roberts?" will grant unacceptable levels of narrative control to the player.

This is just my own style of play, naturally, but I would consider an outright "No" to either of those questions to be an unacceptable impediment to player involvement in my game.

The original question, of whether a PC familiar with a city might know a better route out than the villain, is to me the gold standard of giving players the *tools* they need to play the game well. I can conceive of no map that would illustrate everything the DM needed to say "No" to that question. No hidden sewer? No rat run? No abandoned basement known by the local pick-pockets as a short-cut? No washing line triple-strung deliberately across Main Street so the local urchins could give the town guard the slip?

 

[Imaro]

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.

First, if it comes down to DM decision it is in fact "Mother may I"... you are asking the DM whether something exists and it boils down to his decision.

See I think there may be a big disconnect as far as what some versus others consider narrative control. Using an example many of us may be familiar with... un-eratta'd Come and Get It. It was considered narrative control because there was no DM discretion or mechanical uncertainty in it's changing of the narrative. No save, no DM veto power, none of that. That IMO is an example of narrative control given over to players. It is not narrative control now because the narrative is uncertain because of the Will attk requirement now (I think this is how it works now, but if I'm wrong someone please correct me.).

I don't think anyone is arguing that players shouldn't be involved in the game or have a say in what happens. I think most people are arguing about whether that say should come through the abilities of their PC's or whether it should come through meta-gaming on the part of the player.

 

[Imaro]

I'm a bit bemused by this conversation. According to some definitions here, it seems to that asking things like: "Can I roll Streetwise to find a vendor who'll give me good coin for these scriptures?" or "Can I find a navigator who knows these shores better than the Dread Pirate Roberts?" will grant unacceptable levels of narrative control to the player.

I don't think this is correct. First, I think many don't consider what you just posted above to be narrative control. Second I think what some are saying is that if the DM has decided, regardless of whether the PC's are aware of the state or not, that these things do not exist... then they do not exist. If there is no shortcut, you cannot find it... regardless of your knowledge of vendors, navigation or whatever.

This is just my own style of play, naturally, but I would consider an outright "No" to either of those questions to be an unacceptable impediment to player involvement in my game.

Why? Does the fact that a players first solution to a problem is not viable eliminate other possible solutions? What if those scrolls he is selling are religious texts and while worthless to the average vendor would be quite coveted by a particular church? Or what if you can find a navigator who claims to know the shores better than Dread Roberts? If you have already decided these things I think it can create a more interesting and involved game to keep these boundaries in place as opposed to saying yes to whatever the PC's are trying to do. YMMV of course.

The original question, of whether a PC familiar with a city might know a better route out than the villain, is to me the gold standard of giving players the *tools* they need to play the game well. I can conceive of no map that would illustrate everything the DM needed to say "No" to that question. No hidden sewer? No rat run? No abandoned basement known by the local pick-pockets as a short-cut? No washing line triple-strung deliberately across Main Street so the local urchins could give the town guard the slip?

How about no, you don't know a better route... but by using your physical and mental abilities you may be able to navigate the same road quicker than the villian? Skill challenge time!!! IMO, this would be much more interesting than a Streetwise roll that pawns the escape... and the PC's still have tools to play the game well. I'm not saying every idea should be turned down... but I don't believe say yes always creates the most interesting game either.

 

[Janx]

I don't think this is correct. First, I think many don't consider what you just posted above to be narrative control. Second I think what some are saying is that if the DM has decided, regardless of whether the PC's are aware of the state or not, that these things do not exist... then they do not exist. If there is no shortcut, you cannot find it... regardless of your knowledge of vendors, navigation or whatever.

just a note, wedegeski was observing the same thing. I believe you misunderstood his point. At this point in the conversation, you, myself, hussar and wedgeski and probably some others have all noted that there are differing definitions of Narrative Control. W was then pointing out that whatever it's called, trying to find a shorter path is not a negative player behavior.

Why? Does the fact that a players first solution to a problem is not viable eliminate other possible solutions? What if those scrolls he is selling are religious texts and while worthless to the average vendor would be quite coveted by a particular church? Or what if you can find a navigator who claims to know the shores better than Dread Roberts? If you have already decided these things I think it can create a more interesting and involved game to keep these boundaries in place as opposed to saying yes to whatever the PC's are trying to do. YMMV of course.

it really is quite possible that the answer is no. Especially if the player asks the question at the wrong time and place (perhaps being a dork).

Perhaps point A and Point B are in a straight line down a straight non busy street and that therefore there is no faster way.

For me, I seperate the outcome or actuality of the player request or proposal as the DM's decision domain. He might outsource it to a die roll, but it's his call.

I don't consider it abusive for players to ask if things exist, especially when it is reasonable that they could exist and the GM simply hasn't mentioned it yet because he hadn't considered it.

It's not like he has notes that say:
the BBEG is running to point B. he is not walking, galloping, prancing, meandering, hopping or skipping. He does not trip over stones because the street is smoothly paved. There are no salesman on this street to sell old documents to, nor are there any sailors who are better than the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Therefore lacking such notes that negate any question asked thus far, the GM has to decide if it exists or not. Which is fine. though saying Yes would probably make things more interesting an reduce RR danger, as the players would be enabled to try somethingg NOT on the DM notes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's not like he has notes that say:
the BBEG is running to point B. he is not walking, galloping, prancing, meandering, hopping or skipping. He does not trip over stones because the street is smoothly paved. There are no salesman on this street to sell old documents to, nor are there any sailors who are better than the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Therefore lacking such notes that negate any question asked thus far, the GM has to decide if it exists or not. Which is fine. though saying Yes would probably make things more interesting an reduce RR danger, as the players would be enabled to try somethingg NOT on the DM notes.

Heh, I'm not usually that explicit, but I do, in effect, often have notes that say that kind of things. See, the players that frequent groups that fit my style tend to like both some narrative control and some firm limits to push against. So I'll tend to farm out narrative control in some places, but in others run something a bit more traditional.

And I'm not merely talking narrative control in terms even vaguely related to player agency, but rather the player actually taking control over the story. I have no preference one way or the other whether the captured goblin prisoners will be willing to travel with the party, teaching the party fluent goblin in the process, in return for a negotiated peace on the border. So if a player wants to pursue that storyline, I'll let them. It might not work out (as I'll monitor behavior from the goblins' perspective), but I really don't care. In effect, the player is setting up her own challenge, in a manner that interests her. I'm enthusiastic about that, even if not the details in this case.

OTOH, I'll have those firm limits. The legendary axe, the "wood wight," is in a particular location. Trying to find it are the party, a rival party, a group of elves, some trolls, and the aforementioned goblins. That's firm on my part. No amount of player narrative is going to short-circuit that process, because that is the challenge for the whole party. Player agency via the character can (and probably will) handle each part of the challenge as it arises. Player agency may manage a "divide and conquer" strategy to make the challenges easier, or something else. But there will be no player narration that escapes or otherwise nullifies the challenge.

I'm not particularly wedded to this odd mix from a game theory angle, but it does seem to work for us. It gives the players that want to truly narrate some room to play, which also takes a lot of the prep work off of me. Meanwhile, since I can focus my prep on those handful of things with firm limits, I do a better job with them. And some of the players feel like this gives the world more nuance, as part of what their characters do is push, and see what pushes back.

So I'm fine with saying yes most of the time. I'm not fine with making something work, or trying hard to give it a chance to work, merely because a player asked. That they asked is a sign of interest, but it might be the interest of, "I want to find where the world pushes back." (What I do instead, when a player has a great, flavorful idea, on an aspect that is firm--I make a note, and use that idea as the basis for something else firm in the near future, but unrelated to the current challenge.)

So, in regards to the OP, I could go either way. If I have in my notes that the route chosen by the NPC is the shortest route, then that means that it is the shortest route. If the NPC is reasonably intelligent, and had this planned, then that becomes one of those firm limits. You can chase him on that route, but if you try to go some other way to head him off, it won't work. He outsmarted you here. OTOH, if I have no such plans, then I don't care what happens, as long as they players enjoy him. They can try to head him off, or whatever.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

That is an assumption every setting does not make. All that is required for heroism is the desire and dedication to do it. As far as I am concerned the setting considers the PCs to be the focus of play. Thier heroism (or lack of it) must come from them.

How exactly does the lack of an ability to create bits of setting on the fly limit a character's ability to be heroic?

Does a world that constantly lowers the difficulty bar specifically to enable heroic actions sound very heroic?

 

[Umbran]

Does a world that constantly lowers the difficulty bar specifically to enable heroic actions sound very heroic?

Given that some found it important that there be differentiation between the actions of the character and the actions of the player in this discussion, we should perhaps strive to be consistent. This isn't the world lowering the bar. The world is not taking an action. The GM is making a choice. If the GM does so consistently, always to the same level, then bar is not "constantly lowering", it is staying constantly in the same place.

"Heroic" has many meanings, and there are many standards for heroism. In terms of the sci-fi and fantasy genres, "heroic fiction" has a particular meaning that differs from what we consider "heroic" in the real world. Characters in heroic fiction pull off feats that simply aren't possible in the real world - see the film "The Last Action Hero" for some explication on that front. Some of the tropes of heroic fiction call for GM assistance to pull off - allowing the player to have some authorial control is one form of assistance that can often help.

 

[Rechan]

I love players having narrative control -from both a DM and player standpoint.

In fact my favorite system (Fate) gives tons of narrative control to the players.

 

[Imaro]

I love players having narrative control -from both a DM and player standpoint.

In fact my favorite system (Fate) gives tons of narrative control to the players.

I too enjoy it in systems that are designed for and around it. Throwing it into games that aren't... I've got mixed feelings on.