Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Doug McCrae]

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

Yes.

Captain Jack Sparrow can grab a rope in one hand, cut another rope with his cutlass and then fly pretty much wherever he wants. Normal people can't do that, even in the world of Pirates of the Caribbean. That's part of what makes Jack a hero.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes.

Captain Jack Sparrow can grab a rope in one hand, cut another rope with his cutlass and then fly pretty much wherever he wants. Normal people can't do that, even in the world of Pirates of the Caribbean. That's part of what makes Jack a hero.

I think much of this depends on the style of adventure people expect from D&D. For some reason this is a style of play I associate more with something like Savage Worlds than D&D. Dungeons and Dragons has never struck me as highly cinematic, so I don't tend to play it that way. On the other hands, I do love Pirates of the Caribbean and would happily play a campaign modeled after the movies using Savage Worlds.

 

[Imaro]

I think much of this depends on the style of adventure people expect from D&D. For some reason this is a style of play I associate more with something like Savage Worlds than D&D. Dungeons and Dragons has never struck me as highly cinematic, so I don't tend to play it that way. On the other hands, I do love Pirates of the Caribbean and would happily play a campaign modeled after the movies using Savage Worlds.

Yeah... I keep wondering when John McClane and The Last Action Hero became the new archetypes for fantasy heroes?

 

[The Shaman]

In another thread (which I won't link to because it's really, really long and not on this topic) I posted the following . . .

I read your linked post and noticed that you edited part of it out. Here's the post with the edited bit restored.

A D&D game is not a novel. The characters are not (and should not be) merely pawns to be molded by an all-knowing writer. IMO any DM that thinks he and only he should have any control over the shape and direction of the game world is depriving both himself and his players.

I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.

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."

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)?

I think option b can be a great way for the players to influence the game world – yet too many DMs would look at their map, not see a route, and dismiss this out of hand because it doesn’t fit their (and only their) story.

Note the above is completely the same in 3e or 4e btw (and only tangential to the thread, but I thought I'd answer the question).

I agree that roleplaying games are not novels, but describing the adventurers as "pawns" molded by an "all-knowing writer" strikes me as pretty over-the-top and nothing like the relationship I experience between referee and players in traditional roleplaying games.

Perhaps more importantly, the players and their characters possess the means to change "the shape and direction of the game-world" through their in-character decisions. What they don't have in the campaigns I run is the ability to edit the setting through out-of-character choices.

The presumption here is that players want to be able to create setting details in actual play. Slipping off my Viking hatfor a moment, as a player what I want from a roleplaying game is the opportunity to experience the world through the eyes of my character. I want my control to extend to the things my character senses and manipulates, and no further. Creating setting details at the meta level actually detracts from that; my experience is no longer one of exploring the game-world through my character-avatar when I can make a candlestick conveniently appear when needed by spending a drama point.

It isn't about "all knowing" control at all, but rather how the players engage the game-world in their imagination and what they want to experience from it.

With respect to the example of the adventurer attempting to find an alternate route, I think the player's question is a perfectly reasonable one; it's the kind of question that comes up in my campaign pretty often, and while sometimes there's a roll involved, most of the time, the answer is, "From living in Paris, you know that . . . ."

The idea that the game-world as represented by the map is inherently malleable, that it exists only in the broadest possible strokes until the players interact with it at which point details appear, assumes that there is no setting which exists independent of the characters. I don't think that presumption is true for all games at all.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

In 7th Sea, I give the players the "Since Clause." It goes something like this, "Since I'm standing next to the rope holding the chandelier, I'll cut it and send it crashing down on the brutes." In a chase scene, a Hero might say "since I'm running past a fruit stand." The Since Clause is method to populate the scene based on good ideas from both the Heroes and the GM (and keeps me from having to detail the position of every item in the scene). Major props I'll point out at the start of any given scene or when asked.

Now, 7th Sea is a cinematic game, so I don't mind giving the players limited control over their environment. There are limits, but if it's plausible I run with it. I haven't ever tried it in other games.

 

[Janx]

With respect to the example of the adventurer attempting to find an alternate route, I think the player's question is a perfectly reasonable one; it's the kind of question that comes up in my campaign pretty often, and while sometimes there's a roll involved, most of the time, the answer is, "From living in Paris, you know that . . . ."

The idea that the game-world as represented by the map is inherently malleable, that it exists only in the broadest possible strokes until the players interact with it at which point details appear, assumes that there is no setting which exists independent of the characters. I don't think that presumption is true for all games at all.

Good points.

Is there a functional difference from asking if something exists because the player wants to know so the PC can use it, or if the player is trying to make it exist so the PC can use it?

I take it as a given that for any location, the GM is not fully and completely detailing everything. Therefore when I say, "you burst out the side door onto the street, it's bustling with merchants and shoppers. You can just barely see Snidely Whiplash's top-hat bobbing through the crowd as he makes his escape."

I haven't named the street, or described the social class of the people, their clothes, or the nature of the shops or carts (if there are any), nor even fully how crowded the street is. As a GM, I may not even have thought to do that.

So if a player asks if there's a shortcut, or if there's a rock or an apple from a vendor he can throw, sure he's hoping the answer is yes, and that in some meta-game concept he is 'creating content' that I hadn't.

If the players aren't asking for stupid stuff (can I swing from the chandelier hanging over the street and tackle Snidely?) this doesn't seem out of bounds for any of the questions the player is asking.

I figure every question is to gain information so as to enable them to manipulate the game world to their advantage. Given the difficulty in converying absolute detail, it seems a natural give-and-take component to the RPG concept.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

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.

It's not hyperbolic. When I asked which element of setting, out of all the things that make up a setting, gets priority you said the map.

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

No, I'm saying that your argument for taste is arbitrary. All arguments that boil down to, my taste, are arbitrary and aren't really constructive in getting your point across.

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

Actually, I am very much in favour of that. I have no problem with systems that balance a very high strike rate with damage reduction and other such methods.

... when did I say you're opinion wasn't right?

When you said you disagreed and presented your reasons why. If you just want people to "play what they want" then why bother replying beyond your initial post? It's confusing, on one hand you seem to want a response but then curtail it with your catchphrase there.

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?

I agree, the heroism comes from the PCs actions, like having the foresight to cut off the bad guy at the pass.

It limits their ability to be heroic because they are boxed into being incompetent.

Giving the PCs the ability to catch a bad guy is hardly lowering any metaphysical bar.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Exactly. Can't XP.

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

I don't know how I can help you, here. I've been bad at communication recently.

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).

No, it's not in a constant state of flux. Yes, you're right, plenty of things aren't fixed until they are observed. Just like every campaign.

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.

I might let him, yep. Depends on what guidelines I have in my head. Odds are, it'd come down to a roll or rolls, just like I agreed with pemerton on.

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.

I'd make it come down to rolls, probably. I'd allow the players to roll to see if there was a faster route, and if they succeeded on the check, I'd probably let them know whether there was on or not. If there was, then the rolls would probably be easier.

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?

No, that's ridiculous, and I feel like that's obvious. There's a huge difference between a town map and a tavern map. That'd be like saying, "the continental map shows everything, and this looks like the most direct route. However, it doesn't show any game or wild vegetation. Can they not gather food?" Of course they can gather food. However, when it comes to the most direct route, the map will give an extremely good indication of what that is.

What if, same scenario, you'd already read a flavor text description of patrons sitting on low-backed bar stools?

If all there was were bar stools, then of course there would be no chairs. Why would there suddenly be?

Personally, I think this just demonstrates your preferred play style.

I agree, which is why I said that.

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.

I'll take you up on that bet. I have absolutely no lack of confidence when it comes to running games. I'm at capacity for players right now (I won't run more than six players), but the two newest players left their other groups to play, and I'm stuck GMing because the other players feel intimidated by my GMing and/or have tried and didn't feel like they didn't measure up. Hell, I wrote a chapter in my RPG's book about running a game to get them to try, I've encouraged them to try or encouraged them when they were trying to run a game, and I still end up running the games.

I'm not afraid of ever running a poor game. But, hey, I probably would to people who wanted a more narrative approach. Just goes to show my style is crappy to certain people, huh? As always, play what you like

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.

I think what we have here is two different definitions. Asking to do something with your character isn't narrative control to me or some others in this thread (as indicated by Nagol's quote at the top of this post). A player creating a shortcut with a high check, however, does have narrative control, and that kind of "warping reality" doesn't work for some groups (I put "warping reality in quotes for a reason... it should be obvious based on the thread I assume you've read). As always, play what you like

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.

I felt that he was saying that people were saying it was negative behavior (thus his amusement with the conversation). I probably missed where someone said that people trying to find a shorter path is wrong. Do you know what post that was implied?

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.

See, I feel like you can be told "no" and not be railroaded. To be railroaded, there has to be a specific outcome the players are be herded towards. I can make a judgment call without that in mind. I'm playing in an extremely open sandbox-style game. I'm here to play everyone else in the world, and to make judgment calls about the game (and do other things like help the players feel immersed, etc.). I'm not here to screw over the players, nor am I here to help them succeed. I'm just here to impartially give them answers.

To that end, when I say "no", it's not so that they're stay on the rails. It's because that's how the world is currently arrayed in my mind, and that's how internal consistency works to me. Perhaps if the game was more focused on storyline, then yes, it's probably closer to staying on the rails. If that's the case, though, I'd expect the villain to adapt, head to a different location, not be caught anyways, etc. There's plenty of ways for someone to railroad if that's what they're going for.

Just my perspective on it, as a sandbox GM. As always, play what you like

Good points.

Is there a functional difference from asking if something exists because the player wants to know so the PC can use it, or if the player is trying to make it exist so the PC can use it?

Very much so, in my experience. In my Mutants and Masterminds 2e game, I'll let players blow Hero Points to say, "good thing I remembered to bring [insert exceptionally convenient thing]!" and it's a lot of fun. However, the point of that game when we play is to mimic a cool comic book-like story, not to immerse.

In my Children of Arrash game, if a player asked the question of whether or not something is possible, it's so that he knows how he can act in-game. Yes, he's hoping it'll work out for him, but narrative control trumping the internal consistency of the setting would bring the player out of immersion.

Two different goals, there.

So if a player asks if there's a shortcut, or if there's a rock or an apple from a vendor he can throw, sure he's hoping the answer is yes, and that in some meta-game concept he is 'creating content' that I hadn't.

If the players aren't asking for stupid stuff (can I swing from the chandelier hanging over the street and tackle Snidely?) this doesn't seem out of bounds for any of the questions the player is asking.

I really don't know who is asking for players not to ask that question. We just disagree on what whether or not that form of "creating content" is narrative control. I sincerely think it isn't at all.

I figure every question is to gain information so as to enable them to manipulate the game world to their advantage. Given the difficulty in converying absolute detail, it seems a natural give-and-take component to the RPG concept.

I agree. And you can do that by allowing my definition of narrative control, or not. You can allow the checks themselves to modify the game world, or you can just use them to focus the game world enough to answer the question. Two different methods, and neither are objectively wrong. But, people definitely have preferences, or we wouldn't have this thread. As always, play what you like

It's not hyperbolic. When I asked which element of setting, out of all the things that make up a setting, gets priority you said the map.

No, you didn't ask that. You asked what was more important: the map, or the tone and ability for characters to be heroic. I said the map, because it doesn't preclude heroic characters, nor does it break internal consistency. Had I chosen "the tone and ability for characters to be heroic," I'd be breaking internal consistency.

No, I'm saying that your argument for taste is arbitrary. All arguments that boil down to, my taste, are arbitrary and aren't really constructive in getting your point across.

That's all this entire conversation is. It's not "who's right and who's wrong." If you want to argue about whether or not narrative control for players is objectively right, good luck with that. I won't engage with it, because it's a matter of taste. Preference. That's all.

Actually, I am very much in favour of that. I have no problem with systems that balance a very high strike rate with damage reduction and other such methods.

Again, that's a "very high strike rate" (which implies not 100%) and also a way to make characters "less heroic" (their damage getting reduced). It's a different form of game balance, and arguably equally as effective, but it's still stopping a character from doing something outright heroic right now, which seems to be your objection. I don't see how they're different.

When you said you disagreed and presented your reasons why. If you just want people to "play what they want" then why bother replying beyond your initial post? It's confusing, on one hand you seem to want a response but then curtail it with your catchphrase there.

I'd definitely like a conversation. A discussion. Not an argument. This entire conversation is about what each person prefers, and why. That's a discussion of taste. To that end, all I can do is say, "I don't see it that way, and here's why I think so. Now can you see why my players wouldn't like things the way you do?" Does that make sense? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're playing incorrectly. I'm saying I like playing differently, and why that is.

I agree, the heroism comes from the PCs actions, like having the foresight to cut off the bad guy at the pass.

It limits their ability to be heroic because they are boxed into being incompetent.

Giving the PCs the ability to catch a bad guy is hardly lowering any metaphysical bar.

Why is the only way to catch him cutting him off? Why is being defeated disqualify you from being a hero? Let's go over all the heroes we can, and think of one who is never defeated, or who never suffers a setback.

I'm thought about it for about one minute, but I'm blank so far. I can't think of one hero who never suffers a setback. Can you think of any? Let me know if you can. I'm assuming there's going to be quite a few if it's enough to justify "heroic actions" in a game, not just one instance.

As always, play what you like

 

[Mort]

I read your linked post and noticed that you edited part of it out. Here's the post with the edited bit restored.
I agree that roleplaying games are not novels, but describing the adventurers as "pawns" molded by an "all-knowing writer" strikes me as pretty over-the-top and nothing like the relationship I experience between referee and players in traditional roleplaying games..

The original begining to the respons was meant to be a bit over the top in response to BryanD's post. I felt it was a little to confrontational and did not add enough to the topic, so I edited it out when reposting.

Perhaps more importantly, the players and their characters possess the means to change "the shape and direction of the game-world" through their in-character decisions. What they don't have in the campaigns I run is the ability to edit the setting through out-of-character choices...

I'm not so sure the two are as different as you present them. The character is still making in character decisions - it's just that the player has a greater than 0% influence on whether he can infuence the setting re: those decisions. And frankly all I've been talking about here is the ability for the player to infuence a situation where the DM has not set things firmly in stone - It's just that rather then the DM coming up with an explanation, the player does.

The presumption here is that players want to be able to create setting details in actual play. Slipping off my Viking hatfor a moment, as a player what I want from a roleplaying game is the opportunity to experience the world through the eyes of my character. I want my control to extend to the things my character senses and manipulates, and no further. Creating setting details at the meta level actually detracts from that; my experience is no longer one of exploring the game-world through my character-avatar when I can make a candlestick conveniently appear when needed by spending a drama point.

I think you have a valid point re: setting details that are known. If I walk into a room that is fully realised (the DM has already described it and stated what I said is what you get etc.) I need a candle stick, there is no candle stick - but I use a fate point to suddently "find" a candle stick - that can certainly be a distraction. And I can easily see how that's not to many people's tastes.

It isn't about "all knowing" control at all, but rather how the players engage the game-world in their imagination and what they want to experience from it.

Yes. and sometimes the DM does not fully describe or give enough of a situation/setting - the player wants more out of it. If the DM lets the player add that "more" himself it can really be a win/win.

Though certainly, as with much else, this is a taste issue. You've already stated that this interferes with your world and setting enjoyment - so clearly this should be brought up ahead of time in any campaign to make sure players are on the same page.

With respect to the example of the adventurer attempting to find an alternate route, I think the player's question is a perfectly reasonable one; it's the kind of question that comes up in my campaign pretty often, and while sometimes there's a roll involved, most of the time, the answer is, "From living in Paris, you know that . . . ."

The idea that the game-world as represented by the map is inherently malleable, that it exists only in the broadest possible strokes until the players interact with it at which point details appear, assumes that there is no setting which exists independent of the characters. I don't think that presumption is true for all games at all.

It does not assume that no setting exists outside of the characters, far from it. It assumes that the setting cannot be fully known or experienced until the characters interact with it because it is constantly changing (as real worlds are wont to do).

The players seeing a living, breathing world, one that looks like it will move forward regardless of their presense in it, is great. One way to accomplish this is with small details that change.

For example the villain is fleeing down the most direct path but - there just so happens to be a fruit vender there that will force him to veer and cost valuable time. The PC uses this opportunity to gain ground on/catch the villain (through an alternate path or using the roofs, or whatever).

The cart is a small detail - the question at hand (as I see it) is: Does only the DM have the right to place the cart? Or does he let the players (under certain conditions) place the cart as well?

Spelling it out like that, I can see how some people can be rubbed the wrong way. In many minds either the DM puts the fruit cart there or nobody; the players role as the character is to chase the villain and hope to catch him, using the environment as presented the characters best ability.

Ultimately I prefer to let the player have a say here, but yes it's clearly a YMMV situation.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

No, you didn't ask that. You asked what was more important: the map, or the tone and ability for characters to be heroic. I said the map, because it doesn't preclude heroic characters, nor does it break internal consistency. Had I chosen "the tone and ability for characters to be heroic," I'd be breaking internal consistency.

No, I didn't. I said which part of setting trumps another after I gave an example of how setting is more than a map. It also, does not break internal consistency.

That's all this entire conversation is. It's not "who's right and who's wrong." If you want to argue about whether or not narrative control for players is objectively right, good luck with that. I won't engage with it, because it's a matter of taste. Preference. That's all.

I know that. It's implied but explicitly stating it makes your argument arbitrary. How is anybody going to reply when you just keep repeating your mantra while making your points? It's pretty futile when you just clam up and keep chanting "my taste, my taste, my taste" in response to criticism of your points.

Again, that's a "very high strike rate" (which implies not 100%) and also a way to make characters "less heroic" (their damage getting reduced). It's a different form of game balance, and arguably equally as effective, but it's still stopping a character from doing something outright heroic right now, which seems to be your objection. I don't see how they're different.

Not at all. There is nothing unheroic about hitting armour (DR) or getting parried. "You miss, next" is very unheroic however.

I'd definitely like a conversation. A discussion. Not an argument. This entire conversation is about what each person prefers, and why. That's a discussion of taste. To that end, all I can do is say, "I don't see it that way, and here's why I think so. Now can you see why my players wouldn't like things the way you do?" Does that make sense? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're playing incorrectly. I'm saying I like playing differently, and why that is.

Okay player. Perhaps if you want to have a conservation you should stop opting out every other point. It really is quite confusing.

Why is the only way to catch him cutting him off? Why is being defeated disqualify you from being a hero? Let's go over all the heroes we can, and think of one who is never defeated, or who never suffers a setback.

It doesn't have to be the only way. It's the way that a player has suggested. Your argument is about boxing the player into paths you have predetermined.

I'm thought about it for about one minute, but I'm blank so far. I can't think of one hero who never suffers a setback. Can you think of any? Let me know if you can. I'm assuming there's going to be quite a few if it's enough to justify "heroic actions" in a game, not just one instance.

Perhaps you are drawing a blank because this is a strawman argument designed to discredit the "hero's are not incompetent" argument. We are not talking about a setback. We are talking about a player with a suggestion that they evidently think will be fun and allow their character to contribute. Boxing them in to distinct paths of failure is robbing them of that ability.