Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5719361" data-attributes="member: 6668292">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.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.Haha, I find this amusing. Our mileage has varied. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification