Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Nagol]

<snip>


What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.
<snip>

At no point did I state (or intend to imply) that there would be an auto-win. Merely that a particular gambit may not succeed -- either because the route taken is in fact the best (i.e. a roll against a static DC of the city -- rather than active opposition) or because there really is one good and obvious route between the start and destination points. Merely wanting something is insufficent to guaranteeing getting it and at a table where the DM is assigned narrative control a faster route not becoming manfest is perfectly reasonable.

The party can use any other tactic or ability at their disposal. I find that almost nothing is an autowin if a moderately powerful party really wants to interfere.

 

[Desdichado]

The question of whether there is a town less than 20 miles away, or a ford, is a slightly different issue. This is closer to a genuine example of narrative control, I think, and the blog that LostSoul linked to becomes relevant:

In a scenario in which the aim is for the players to survive the 20 mile journey to town, then letting the players circumvent the challenge by positing a ford is coming close to letting the players define the parameters of their own challenge, which can lead to unsatisfying play. On the other hand, when the journey to town is a challenge, but surviving a 20 mile journey is neither here nor there, then finding and using the ford makes sense as part of the challenge resolution. I think this becomes about a GM making decisions about the parameters of the situation, making them clear to the players, and then adjudicating action resolution (including skill tests that "create new facts", like BW -wises, or the knowledge check that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggests upthread) in light of that.

Where I'm losing you is where you deviate from the example as posted so far, though. At no point in any of the citings of this example did I see this as a meaningful challenge to be overcome. It's just a scenario, and it gives a player with Knowledge (geography) a chance to use a skill that otherwise probably gets pretty dusty.

I'm not saying I can clearly articulate this difference, but I think it is pretty noticeable in play, because in the first case you'll have enthusiastic players taking up your challenges, whereas in the second case you'll have grumpy players complaining about your railroading. (If I did try and articulate it, I would say that scene framing creates a "space" in which the players can pursue their goals via the action resolution mechanics, whereas "mother may I" is the players having to beg the GM to succeed in the pursuit of their goals.)

Now I'm really losing you, although maybe I'm missing the point of what you call "Mother May I" scenarios. Asking the GM if you could use a skill check to determine if there are smaller settlements than showed on the map that are closer, and having a high check sway the GM to decide that yes, there are, is railroading? It's unsatisfying to the players?

Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree with you. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the conventional wisdom I've seen so far suggest the exact opposite of that.

 

[Imaro]

Considering 'Die Hard' is from 1988, I'd say about twenty years ago

I was actually being a little tongue and cheek. I just remember as a kid these were not the names that poppped into my head when I thought "fantasy" hero, and I grew up in the mid-late 80's. In my mind an action hero and a fantasy hero were two different things. I wanted to be Aragorn, Perseus, Elric, Gray Mouser, Lancelot, and a host of other fantasy heroes but I don't think I associated them with the action hero stereotype. Even the Sword and Sorcery fiction I discovered seemed less over the top than those movies.

1979.

That year precedes the two movies you referenced but I mention it because it is, I believe, the very first published attempt to make D&D more closely resemble the source fiction, Doug Green's article "Rewarding Heroism In D&D", in Dragon Magazine #29. One of the rules he suggests is a sort of early Hero Point mechanic - a PC fighting alone for the good of the party, ie being a hero, receives a major boost to his combat capabilities (attack as a character of double level, take half damage, 20% boost to everything else).

One major difference is that Doug's "heroic act" is not under the control of the player. The player doesn't choose to spend a hero point to get the temporary stat increase, it happens whenever a PC is in the appropriate situation.

Later Hero Point mechanics, in games such as James Bond 007 and Mutants & Masterminds, are under the player's control. They can be used to boost a PC's capabilities briefly, simulating action movie stunts and comic book heroes suddenly accessing a new power (which they never use again in subsequent issues), and even alter, or, it might be more correct to say determine, or pin down, details completely outside the PC's control. The example in James Bond 007 is of the player spending a hero point to have a gold brick happen to be lying nearby, which he can use as a makeshift club to thwack Oddjob.

Narrative control points often seem to be associated with games that are more interested in simulating adventure fiction than D&D has historically been. (As far as I'm aware, the only fiction-sim rules in D&D are 4e's minions and, arguably, the saving throw mechanic.) It's worth considering why this should be. Adventure fiction is replete with lucky, and unlucky, coincidences that get the hero out of, and into, peril. One obvious way to go is to allow the player to determine when he gets a lucky coincidence, while the GM determines the unlucky ones. This makes the fiction-sim also work as a game, in which the player only has a limited number of 'lucky coincidence' points. It's also beneficial because it gives the player more agency, and in general people like to have agency. Though I note that upthread several people have expressed a dislike of this because it breaks immersion.

Another way to go would be to have the lucky and unlucky coincidences controlled by the system, presumably by dice roll. Perhaps something pretty close to the critical hit/fumble idea, where a 1 or a 20 mean something extraordinary happens. However in the fiction, the coincidences do seem to be a lot less random than this. That could also conceivably be built in, by using some measure of how much peril the PC is currently in. If he's in no peril at all, then it's very likely something bad, or at least adventure-inducing, will occur. If he's in a lot, then he's almost certain to get a lucky break. And so the endless roller coaster continues.

See I've always thought the extreme competency of D&D characters in their repsective field(s) along with things like HP's and Saving Throws represented the fiction-sim (at least as far as the fantasy I've read and seen) pretty well... of course this is accounting for the fact that ultimately it is a game (as opposed to shared storytelling) and a player, unlike a character written by the author, will fail and die at times.

 

[Janx]

Now I'm really losing you, although maybe I'm missing the point of what you call "Mother May I" scenarios. Asking the GM if you could use a skill check to determine if there are smaller settlements than showed on the map that are closer, and having a high check sway the GM to decide that yes, there are, is railroading? It's unsatisfying to the players?

Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree with you. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the conventional wisdom I've seen so far suggest the exact opposite of that.

I agree.

Let's discard these gamist terms like Narrative Control. Nobody agrees on their scope anyway.

Since the dawn of the first RPG, players have asked if something exists, and at many times with the hope that the answer is Yes so they can use it.

If I say the PCs enter what appears to be the Dining Room of the Mansion. That paints a picture. But if the player has an idea, he's going to ask questions that both clarify that picture and lead the DM to what the player wants. If he asks "are there any candlesticks?" he might be hoping to steal them, or use them as a light source, or an improvised weapon. It's entirely logical that a dining room could have them, but they might also have been plundered or not-applicable as the room uses wall sconces.

Whatever this form of behavior is called, it's been happening for 40 years.

Now the player asking if there's a Teleport pad nearby so he can skip walking 20 miles. That's a bit stronger. He's gone beyond the realm of creating content that is probably there to getting very specific and very special (assuming teleport pads are not a common occurance in this world).

Nextly to all this, is the ironic assumption that saying yes = railroading. I would find that to be quite the opposite.

Players who ask if things exist that the DM didn't explicitly define are going off the rails. RailRoading is more related to when the DM tries to keep them in the bounds of his defined content. Saying "No" is the tool a RR GM would use to keep them constrained to the path the GM has planned.

Not saying a GM who says "No" is railroading. But a true RRGM is more likely to say "No" than "Yes" to any question regarding undefined content in order to constrain player choices to the valid path he has planned. Saying Yes would unlock new paths that could bypasss his RR content or worse.

As to the concept of asking these kinds of questions being unsatisfying to the players? They're the MotherFrakkers who asked! Players wouldn't ask if there's a shortcut if they didn't want to hear "Yes"

To sum up, for me, it is standard game play to ask if something is present that logically does tend to exist in the typical environment(candlesticks in Dining Rooms, shortcuts on maps, rocks on roads, applecarts in markets, deer in forests) and that the GM is free to resolve the answer by their own method.

It is therefore accepted that the player is trying to lead or manipulate the GM into saying Yes so as to gain an advantage, but that is no more or less what a player and PC would try to do regardless of the GM's resolution mechanic.

It is a different thing to ask for unusual things (like a Teleport Pad in the woods) which are atypical for that kind of environment. If the rules don't allow for stronger content suggestions (points to spend on Content) than the GM is within his right to say "No" outright as the player may be abusing the "clarifying question" principle.

 

[pemerton]

Asking the GM if you could use a skill check to determine if there are smaller settlements than showed on the map that are closer, and having a high check sway the GM to decide that yes, there are, is railroading?

Not at all. Railroading would be when the GM dictates how things unfold without reference to the action resolution mechanics.

It's unsatisfying to the players?

I think railroading is generally unsatisfying. But the other thing that I think can be unsatisfying - and here I'm influence by the blog that LostSoul linked to upthread - is when the players pose their own challenge for their PCs. That blog cites it as the Czege principle:

The “Czege principle” is a proposition by Paul Czege that it’s not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict. It’s not a theorem but rather an observation; where and how and why it holds true is an ongoing question of some particular interest.​

A situation in which players are able to use their knowledge skills in the form of Burning Wheel "-wises", essentially to introduce facts into the setting that circumvent the challenge that the situation poses, runs the risk of violating the Czege principle, because the players are both framing the challenge, and trying to overcome it via the play of their PCs.

This is what could happen in the 20 mile journey scenario: the GM frames a situation which the players are to engage via their PCs, but then - by using their knowledge skills - the players in effect reframe the situation (in fact, no 20 mile journey is requires) and thus set their own challenge.

Now, it may be that it would be unusual for the 20 mile journey to be a challenge. As you say,

Where I'm losing you is where you deviate from the example as posted so far, though. At no point in any of the citings of this example did I see this as a meaningful challenge to be overcome. It's just a scenario, and it gives a player with Knowledge (geography) a chance to use a skill that otherwise probably gets pretty dusty.

But if it's not a meaningful challenge at all - if there's nothing at stake - then it wouldn't even matter whether the PCs go 20 miles or go to a closer hamlet. This would be where the injunction to "say yes or roll the dice" that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] quoted upthread would become relevant.

And if the challenge isn't to travel 20 miles safely, but rather to find some habitation or other, then using knowledge checks to find a closer hamlet, or a ford that cuts distance off the journey, would be fine (provided it is not already establishd in the fiction that there is no such hamlet). But in my view this should be built into the action resolution mechanics (in 4e, the relevant mechanics would be a skill challenge) rather than just the players ad hoc getting the GM's permission to roll their knowledge skills.

Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree with you.

I think maybe some misunderstanding, and some disagreement. I hope the above makes clearer what I mean by it being unsatisfying for the players to pose their own challenge.

Where there probably is some disagreement is that, if nothing is at stake, I would just say yes rather than make the players faff around with knowledge checks. And, conversely, once the challenge has been framed, I think it can be unsatisfying for the playes to use skill checks to circumvent it rather than overcome it. And if the GM is framing challenges that the players find boring (like, say, a 20 mile journey) then I don't think the solution is for the players to use skill checks to circumvent the challenge. The solution is for the GM to stop framing boring scenes. To put it another way, I'd rather handle the issue of boring scene framing all at the strictly metagame level, rather than relying on failsafes in the action resolution mechanics.

 

[JamesonCourage]

[SNIP]

So for me it's not about fudging the map, it's about the GM not having authority, any more than the players do, to stipulate that his/her NPC succeeds in some contested action without having to engage the action resolution mechanics.

As I think I posted upthread, or perhaps on the original thread, for me this is no different from the fact that the GM can't just stipulate that his/her NPCs strike killing blows. The action resolution mechanics must be engaged.

This is where I think it's not equivalent. You make a decision based on in-character knowledge, then use the mechanics to resolve it. For example, you'd say, "I swing my sword at the troll" when you know there's a troll, and you know he's within reach, then you use mechanics to resolve it. With the escaping villain, you'd use in-character knowledge in exactly the same way: I know this town well, I'm going to cut him off if possible, or chase him if I don't think I can, and I determine if it's successful by using mechanics.

You're saying that the opponent's don't even get to make in-character decisions, which is a luxury that PCs get. In a game where I want both NPCs and PCs making decisions from an in-character point of view, this fails for me, and hard.

When an NPC wants to walk across the street to a shop when the PCs are stealthily watching him, he doesn't make a check. He knows the exact route he needs to take. In a city where the NPC at hand is taking the most direct route (as was used in the example in the OP), there should be no roll to determine if that's suddenly not the case, much as there wouldn't be for a player character. That is, just like a PC can say, "I walk across the street to the shop" when he knows of the shop there, he can say, "I take the most direct route to the docks" if his character knows the most direct route there.

Now, I say, "should" and so on in the above, but I want to make it very clear, this is just my play style. I'm not saying the game needs to be run this way, nor am I saying that the game is more fun in any objective sense when run this way. It's just my style, so feel free to use what works for your group, and tear it up.

What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.

(1) That's not unreasonable to me if it makes sense. That is, looking at the game from a sense of internal consistency (not changing established facts, as the OP suggests be the case when the a shortcut would be created). To some groups, such as mine, this style of play is preferred, and much more rewarding than a more narrative style (and thus more fun for us).

(2) Having the most direct route is not an auto-win necessarily. You can still catch up, distract, trip up, etc. the villain. I think it's unfair to paint it as "you should be able to have a chance of cutting him off or it's unreasonable." That, to me, is unreasonable.

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

That's not unreasonable to me if it makes sense. That is, looking at the game from a sense of internal consistency (not changing established facts, as the OP suggests be the case when the a shortcut would be created).

Perhaps [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] can chime in, but I didn't read the OP as suggesting that the established fiction be changed. As I read it, the suggestion was precisely that it was notestablised in the shared fiction that there was no shorter route. (There may have been no alternative path indicated on the GM's map, but the GM's map is not the shared fiction - as Vincent Baker talks about here, the GM's map is the GM's initial plan for how to contribute content to the shared fiction.)

You're saying that the opponent's don't even get to make in-character decisions

No. The NPC gets to decide, in character, to take the shortest route, just as a player might decide for his/her PC. But then - just as would be the case for a player - the GM must engage the action resolution mechanics to see if the NPC succeeds in achieving his/her intention. Maybe s/he is ignorant, and there is in fact a shorter way. Maybe s/he is short, and for the taller there is a shorter way that requires jumping a fence too high for the NPC. Maybe, unbenknownst to the NPC, there are roadworks taking place on his/her preferred route.

Just as for the playes, so for the GM in resolving the NPC's action - there are any number of reasons why an intention could misfire in some way, and when there is something at stake, I'm not a big fan of the GM deciding unilaterally, without engaging the mechanics, that the NPC automatically succeeds.

 

[Krensky]

Not at all. Railroading would be when the GM dictates how things unfold without reference to the action resolution mechanics.

That's not railroading, it's GM fiat. Fiat is a tool often used by Railroading GMs, but it is not in and of itself railroading.

The OP isn't narrative control. It's the player making a statement, presumably from the context, with backing on his character sheet and then asking a question. The GM has him roll the appropriate check to determine then answer to that question rather then making a decision on it himself for whatever reason.

Narrative control would be him stating that there is a shortcut (by spending a point or whatever that game uses to adjudicate of control player narrative control).

I use both all the time in my games, although as GM I get final veto on all Narrative control, typically I just wind up turning down the knob on whatever the player wanted and rarely at that. I also loss over boring stuff and don't ask for rolls for simple or mundane stuff. I don't subscribe to the Indie 'Say Yes' mantra, but I see no reason to bore myself or the other players with mundane, no risk die rolls.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Perhaps [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] can chime in, but I didn't read the OP as suggesting that the established fiction be changed.

If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group). Mort said:

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)?

To me, when he indicates "changing the reality of the game world as he planned it" and he has a drawn up map of the city with which he could reliably use up to this point as a part of the setting, changing it would be changing the setting (which is part of internal consistency, much the same way I'd consider "established fiction" to be).

As I read it, the suggestion was precisely that it was notestablised in the shared fiction that there was no shorter route. (There may have been no alternative path indicated on the GM's map, but the GM's map is not the shared fiction - as Vincent Baker talks about here, the GM's map is the GM's initial plan for how to contribute content to the shared fiction.)

I guess it'll depend on the group. For example, I basically only use regional or continental maps. My players have access to these, and use them to great extent to plan and plot. To change this map would certainly be drastically altering the setting. To me, I don't have a "GM's" map. And, just like most thing you link from Vincent Baker, I strongly disagree with what you're putting forward as I understand it (and no, I didn't read anything from the link). If I have a map as GM, it's now set in the setting. I will not be changing it for convenience's sake. I might expand focus to something not covered, yes. Like I said, my maps are continental, and just because there's no wild game or edible vegetation on the map, it doesn't mean it's impossible to survive in the wild. No, that's not what's important to the map, and it's not on it. However, in a city map, with streets already mapped out, there will be absolutely no change to it simply because the players haven't seen it. And they would not want me to, either.

No.

You know, that was presumptuous of me. I apologize. I try not to put words in people's mouths without a qualifier ("as I understand it" or the like).

The NPC gets to decide, in character, to take the shortest route, just as a player might decide for his/her PC. But then - just as would be the case for a player - the GM must engage the action resolution mechanics to see if the NPC succeeds in achieving his/her intention. Maybe s/he is ignorant, and there is in fact a shorter way. Maybe s/he is short, and for the taller there is a shorter way that requires jumping a fence too high for the NPC. Maybe, unbenknownst to the NPC, there are roadworks taking place on his/her preferred route.

Right, okay, this makes sense to me. And, according to the OP, the NPC was taking the most direct route. Maybe the NPC rolled a Local or Streetwise check to find the most direct route, and got it. It's not opposed by the PCs. It's just static, as it'd be exactly the same whether or not it's opposed. And, according to the OP, they're taking the most direct route. However, changing the map or dismissing it wouldn't go over well in my group based off of a high PC roll. It'd be bypassing the internal consistency of the setting (setting or established fiction), and that's very much against what we want out of the game.

Just as for the playes, so for the GM in resolving the NPC's action - there are any number of reasons why an intention could misfire in some way, and when there is something at stake, I'm not a big fan of the GM deciding unilaterally, without engaging the mechanics, that the NPC automatically succeeds.

I'm near-positive that after your initial post saying you'd use mechanics to resolve this, I quoted you and posted that I agree. Why you assume I wouldn't use mechanics to resolve this is still exceptionally unclear to me. I would let the NPC make a check to know the most direct route, but if he gets it, he gets it. PCs rolling high won't allow a new route, it'll just tell them the same route (assuming they aren't all amazing acrobats or the like, but if they were, they'd probably just say, "I want to run across the rooftops as the crow flies to the location we think he's headed" and be done with it). No, in a party that will vary in skill and likely in height, most of the time it'll be the same as the villains. And, I think saying so isn't unreasonable. YMMV.

As always, play what you like

 

[Mort]

Perhaps [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] can chime in, but I didn't read the OP as suggesting that the established fiction be changed. As I read it, the suggestion was precisely that it was notestablised in the shared fiction that there was no shorter route. (There may have been no alternative path indicated on the GM's map, but the GM's map is not the shared fiction - as Vincent Baker talks about here, the GM's map is the GM's initial plan for how to contribute content to the shared fiction.)

Honestly, it was a 10 second example (not directly pulled from a game,(though I've certainly seen variations of it) and at the time of posting I hadn't realy thought much about whether the fiction itself was established.

Obviously the fiction being not established makes things easier to change - as whether the villain is taking "the fastest" route is still an open question.

That said, the players don't see my full map assuming I've even drawn one. I'm perfectly willing to change things if the group gives me a better option than the one I have in mind.