D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Scribble]

Or does railroading in your mind have definition limitations that forcing by influencing doesn't?

Personally I think the term railroad is vastly overused these days.

I've always thought of railroad as forcing players to do something by simply removing all other options.

IE not only is the aforementioned warehouse guarded well, but the guards are infinite in number, and there is no door to the warehouse, which happens to be made out of teleporatation resistant steel, etc...

Nudging, imo, is way different- especially if the information used to nudge is given in a way that makes sense. (Like if characters have decent streetwise skill levels.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ron Edwards view is that in a situation of genuine conflict in styles, grief and bad roleplaying experiences will result. In my experience, back when I used to GM more varied groups with a wider range of expectations, as long as the GM and the dominant personalities among the players can get on the same page, the more passive players will follow along!

But I don't think there's any simple answer like "If the group is mixed, the the GM should be more restrained". Because if some members of the group are looking for the GM to actively push them in the game, they'll have a bad time just as much as the sandoxers in the group will have a bad time if the GM stats prodding and poking.

My experience is similar to yours, except that I will extend that: In order for the mix group to work for me, it is also a requirement that the dominant players be willing to care about about engaging the more passive players. In effect, the dominant players must share a bit of what is often traditionally a DM duty. They must subsume their own desires, at times, to bring the passive players out, but not neglect their own fun.

Also, I don't think what we do would work nearly as well if we had a player that was heavily focused on one style or the other. We all like the different styles to varying degrees, but at least a little, and have played games that were extreme in each vein, and enjoyed them. This is where "creative agenda" makes some sense, in that it focuses on what you want right now, as opposed to "what kind of player you are."

So I suppose in a strict creative agenda sense, we are people who are changing our creative agenda during a session, sometimes rapidly, and picking up cues from the other players in order to shift seemlessly. I think once you start changing it as often as we do, though, the Big Model makes less and less sense as a description of what works and why.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I opine that they are a lot more similar than some DMs are willing to admit. In both cases, the DM is directly attempting to influence the direction of the action.

What is that except railroading, even if done in a mild way that the DM is sure will work?

Or does railroading in your mind have definition limitations that forcing by influencing doesn't?



Ok, I don't understand you.

The creative approach is "to simply let the players find out that indeed the building is heavily guarded all on their own".

The easy approach is to "introduce that information without needing them to go look for themselves".

So, which are you suggesting? The creative approach or the easy approach? They seem to be different approaches, but you aren't saying which is preferable.

And how are either of these two approaches NOT attempts to railroad the players into not trying to go into the building?

OK, lets just blow the doors off this joint! Actually I doubt we're really all that far off from each other in terms of what we do at the table. I just don't look at it in terms of hard and fast rules.

Lets take this building example. Now, suppose you'd defined when you added this element to your game that the building was really heavily guarded. Is that 'railroading'? I don't think anyone would consider that to be the case. Now, suppose that in the story line the people associated with that building became aware that the PCs might try to go there, and they buffed up its defenses to make it impregnable. Is that railroading? Suppose the people who own the building are clever and you have them spread a rumor that the building is really heavily guarded. Is that railroading? I mean basically ALL INFORMATION you give to the players is going to influence their decisions. There's no line you can draw between influencing the players and simply describing the game world, unless you're going to establish every detail of the world ahead of time without any reference to the players at all, which is obviously impossible. So there is no such thing as "DM A nudges/railroads his players" and "DM B is totally objective and never influences them". Thus this is only an argument about technique and degree, nothing else.

As for steering the players to one adventure vs another. Again this is a matter of understanding your players and their needs and wants. What I was suggesting in terms of how information can be presented to the players is that you can establish a harmony between the needs and wants of the DM and the players by doing it right. Sure, there's the possibility that a DM can go from impresario to puppet master by being too heavy-handed. Heck some groups actually like it that way, so to simply say one way is right and another is wrong is itself too narrow a view. Beyond that as DM I also have an interest in having fun. Players can easily become butt-headed and make things less fun for the DM too. Everyone needs to have fun and there's no bad way to do that if it works.

 

[KarinsDad]

This third approach is obviously at odds with exploration-focused sandboxing. It suits either step-on-up gamism (the GM frames scenes that let the players do their thing!) or thematically-focused narrativism (the GM frames scenes that let the players address the thematic concerns that are interesting to them). It can also be used for non-sandbox exploration play (I say this from experience).

Good analysis.

I do think, however, that the approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

As people, we like to compartmentalize ideas, but I have seen some subset of all three approaches done in a single campaign.

The DM has prepared material, but not just one adventure (kind of like the node idea where each node is partially fleshed out, but not all nodes have to be reached). The players explore their thematic elements, make nearly all of the direction decisions, but those eventually lead to some subset of the DM's prepared material. Sometimes, the DM has to modify that material on the fly to suit the moment, but for the most part, he just finds a convenient way to insert it in. The DM adds new elements (and adventures/nodes) to his world all of the time, but his world also has elements that are immutable to the desires of the players (e.g. No, the elves don't sing songs around a campfire in my world). The DM decides which campaign elements are immutable and which can be modified, the players do not.

Since the DM has the prepared PC backgrounds, he has a general idea of elements to add to his world before he even starts and he just expands upon that as the campaign progresses.

This is a more balanced approach that doesn't make it an either/or. At the same time, the DM is still the final authority and also impartial. It also allows for more diverse groups of players since each player can be in the spotlight some fraction of the time and participate the way he or she wants to.


I have never experienced a gaming group that used the shared authorship that you linked to. Not to sound too haughty, but it sounds like a bunch of DM-wannabes (or a DM who has problems being in authority). I could see such a group easily having problems because of shared authorship conflicts.

This is where "Just Say No" comes in. The DM can allow such shared authorship (I wouldn't, but then, I'm an old grognard), but he sometimes has to take the reins.

And I could see problems where a DM wants his players to participate in a certain way or to a certain amount in such an environment, but some players have different gaming goals in mind. One of the most important things for a DM to learn is that not all of his players are going to react the way he wants or expects them to, especially to fill in the narrative. Players will do unexpected things and some of those unexpected things will shut down a narrative as much as add to it (i.e. the player will not engage or will engage off into a side direction). By giving players a high level of authorship, those unexpected things that they do could be quite monumental and even disruptive to the campaign.


One aspect of the gaming community "entitlement" movement is that it trains players that most anything is ok. Any idea is fair game, any PC build is fair game, any stunt is fair game, any feat is fair game. Everything is balanced and ok, and don't worry, the DM will adjust to any minor issues.

And people being people, this brings out the worse in some people. Like a young child who is denied a toy, some players (not all, but some) in a shared authorship environment might feel shut down when a scene doesn't blossom in the way they were imagining and that will be doubly worse if the DM ever just says no.

Kind of like cowboys and indians:

I shot you first.
No, I shot you first.
No, I shot you first.

Just on a different level. And the dominant players will often prevail.


The final authority concept really is the reason that we (i.e. most of us) use dice and don't improve to the nth degree. There are pre-defined boundaries via rules and roles. By sharing authorship, the roles lines start to get muddied. Sharing authorship is probably ok, but it should be done through a filter (i.e. the DM) who can say yes or no (instead of just yes).

 

[KarinsDad]

OK, lets just blow the doors off this joint! Actually I doubt we're really all that far off from each other in terms of what we do at the table. I just don't look at it in terms of hard and fast rules.

Lets take this building example. Now, suppose you'd defined when you added this element to your game that the building was really heavily guarded. Is that 'railroading'? I don't think anyone would consider that to be the case. Now, suppose that in the story line the people associated with that building became aware that the PCs might try to go there, and they buffed up its defenses to make it impregnable. Is that railroading? Suppose the people who own the building are clever and you have them spread a rumor that the building is really heavily guarded. Is that railroading? I mean basically ALL INFORMATION you give to the players is going to influence their decisions. There's no line you can draw between influencing the players and simply describing the game world, unless you're going to establish every detail of the world ahead of time without any reference to the players at all, which is obviously impossible. So there is no such thing as "DM A nudges/railroads his players" and "DM B is totally objective and never influences them". Thus this is only an argument about technique and degree, nothing else.

Precisely. But, technique and degree is the important point here.


Some DMs feel comfortable blurting out "it's heavily guarded" and the players react to that before the PCs even go find out if it is guarded or not.

And, some DMs feel comfortable waiting until the PCs go there and then they tell them that the PCs see that it is heavily guarded.

In both cases, the DM influences the group. So, it is a style issue.

But, there is a difference. The perception of the players for the DM that just blurts it out is "Oh, the DM doesn't want us to go there, let's not do it." It feels like mild railroading. It feels like the players do not have a choice, even if they decide to ignore the DM's "hint".

The perception of the players for the DM who lets them find it out for themselves is "Oh, there are guards. Hmmmm. This might be trickier than we thought. We might not want to go in here." It flows a lot better. It feels like the players have more of a choice.

In the first case, the DM is shouting with an exclamation point DON"T GO THERE! Why? Because he emphasized the point out of context of an "in character" description. He just blurted it out.

In the second case, the DM is still influencing the group in the exact same way with the same goal in mind, but he's not shouting. He emphasized the point in the context of "in character" as part of a normal description of what the PCs see.

Similar amount of player decision influencing. Different feel. In the second case, I might look at it as a challenge as a player. The DM is trying to challenge us here. How can we solve this? In the first case, I'm pretty much reading the DM as saying "don't go do that" and I'd feel like the other players will view me as disruptive if I tried to influence the group to ignore the DM.

DMs really do have this much power, hence, the reason to use it via the "soft voice" instead of the "big stick".

And it's a simple thing to do. Speak up via NPC conversations, environment descriptions, reminding players of information that they have already learned, and adding knowledge information due to the skills of the PCs. But, don't just go blurting our your ideas on how their plan could be better or giving them information that the PCs have not yet acquired (like the building is guarded). Be part of the background, not intrusive, when the players are making decisions.


The difference between "nudging" via just blurting out an opinion or idea, and "nudging" via describing the scene or via interacting with the NPCs is miles apart.

Which is why the DM should keep his mouth shut when the players are discussing ideas or plans and let the players come to their own conclusions without pushing their plans into the direction that the DM wants. Let the players come upon the building with the guards. They now have a choice. Give up, or modify to their plans. Again, their choice.

They really don't have a choice when the DM intercedes during their planning.


And note: this is not to say that the DM shouldn't remind the players of information that they already know, but may have forgotten. It's not keep your mouth shut about everything. And if he does remind them, he is influencing them. But the DM has a better idea of the entire campaign and much of what has gone on within it before, so he will remember things that players will forget. He should, where appropriate, remind players of information that they have already acquired. But, that's different than shutting down an idea or suggesting a new idea or adding new information that the PCs have not yet acquired.

It's not directly nudging, it's indirectly nudging where indirect might not even be picked up on as intended and can more easily be ignored (or not even noticed in the first place) if that's what the players want to do.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Good analysis.

I do think, however, that the approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

As people, we like to compartmentalize ideas, but I have seen some subset of all three approaches done in a single campaign.

The DM has prepared material, but not just one adventure (kind of like the node idea where each node is partially fleshed out, but not all nodes have to be reached). The players explore their thematic elements, make nearly all of the direction decisions, but those eventually lead to some subset of the DM's prepared material. Sometimes, the DM has to modify that material on the fly to suit the moment, but for the most part, he just finds a convenient way to insert it in. The DM adds new elements (and adventures/nodes) to his world all of the time, but his world also has elements that are immutable to the desires of the players (e.g. No, the elves don't sing songs around a campfire in my world). The DM decides which campaign elements are immutable and which can be modified, the players do not.

Since the DM has the prepared PC backgrounds, he has a general idea of elements to add to his world before he even starts and he just expands upon that as the campaign progresses.

This is a more balanced approach that doesn't make it an either/or. At the same time, the DM is still the final authority and also impartial. It also allows for more diverse groups of players since each player can be in the spotlight some fraction of the time and participate the way he or she wants to.

Well, I agree there is a lot of flexibility and personally I've never subscribed to the concept that some games are a 'sandbox' and other games are 'something else'. Not that there aren't distinctions, but any game can run through a whole range of different situations. The way I see it though there is ALWAYS a dialog going on between the players and the DM as to what you all want. It isn't something you can decide to have or not, it just exists. Beyond that if the PCs haven't encountered something in the world yet, then it has no real existence. It is a pretend world. Anything that isn't in the narrative is just an unrealized concept.

I have never experienced a gaming group that used the shared authorship that you linked to. Not to sound too haughty, but it sounds like a bunch of DM-wannabes (or a DM who has problems being in authority). I could see such a group easily having problems because of shared authorship conflicts.

All you have to do is talk to the players. "What do you want guys?" Sure, you may get a variety of answers. This is just normal. You won't ever have a group where everyone wants exactly the same thing all the time. Compromise will have to exist. If the players can't as a group have fun together in the same game then the group has a problem. I have honestly in all my years of gaming never had a big problem. I've had overbearing players, trouble makers, and all the usual sorts. Now and then a player will not be satisfied and leave, but it is pretty rare. The DM does need to be the facilitator for this in most cases, but it isn't that hard.

This is where "Just Say No" comes in. The DM can allow such shared authorship (I wouldn't, but then, I'm an old grognard), but he sometimes has to take the reins.

The DM should take the initiative when the game strays from the territory of being fun, sure. As far as what the actual story ends up being, not so much.

And I could see problems where a DM wants his players to participate in a certain way or to a certain amount in such an environment, but some players have different gaming goals in mind. One of the most important things for a DM to learn is that not all of his players are going to react the way he wants or expects them to, especially to fill in the narrative. Players will do unexpected things and some of those unexpected things will shut down a narrative as much as add to it (i.e. the player will not engage or will engage off into a side direction). By giving players a high level of authorship, those unexpected things that they do could be quite monumental and even disruptive to the campaign.

Disruptive in what way? If it isn't detrimental to having fun then it doesn't matter. I've run for groups that practically ran the campaign for themselves. My job was to make stuff up so they could be surprised and challenged. Most groups will let the DM take the lead on the overall plot. Many players however will add their own elements to the setting and plot. The DM will need to figure out how to work things in and interpreting the players input creatively is good. I've had players make up organizations, countries, evil opponent groups, towns, etc. all pretty much on their own. I may say "well, I think the history of that is like this..." or "How do we work that into the setting, maybe it should go over there." Usually the players don't try to nail things down TOO much as they can easily see that somehow the DM needs to stitch it all together.

One aspect of the gaming community "entitlement" movement is that it trains players that most anything is ok. Any idea is fair game, any PC build is fair game, any stunt is fair game, any feat is fair game. Everything is balanced and ok, and don't worry, the DM will adjust to any minor issues.

And people being people, this brings out the worse in some people. Like a young child who is denied a toy, some players (not all, but some) in a shared authorship environment might feel shut down when a scene doesn't blossom in the way they were imagining and that will be doubly worse if the DM ever just says no.

Kind of like cowboys and indians:

I shot you first.
No, I shot you first.
No, I shot you first.

Just on a different level. And the dominant players will often prevail.

Eh, I haven't had these kinds of problems. At a tactical level the DM is going to be arbitrating things, say in combat, but then those are the places where you have extensive rules to fall back on generally. I've never had a player tell me they were 'entitled' to this that or the other thing. I can see where you could get a player who demands something. I'm going to either figure out a way to make that thing interesting or let the other players help decide how that goes. If a player is really enough of a butt-head that they refuse to go along with the rest of the table at all points they're just going to have to deal with it. Maybe they'll leave I guess. Again, never really explicitly happened in any of my groups. I think that sort of player is actually pretty rare.

The final authority concept really is the reason that we (i.e. most of us) use dice and don't improve to the nth degree. There are pre-defined boundaries via rules and roles. By sharing authorship, the roles lines start to get muddied. Sharing authorship is probably ok, but it should be done through a filter (i.e. the DM) who can say yes or no (instead of just yes).

Really in the end I don't think it is about the words yes and no. It is about what levels the players participate in the game at. My feeling is they can participate at any level they feel comfortable with. I don't feel proprietary about the setting I use or really care that much how the plot of the campaign or story arc comes out. In THAT sense I'm neutral. I just don't consider myself to be the neutral keeper of 'my' setting.

Heck, I was talking to one of my players about the implications of some plot developments and he asked about what would happen if the world was destroyed. He seemed to feel like I'd not want to blow up the whole setting. My answer was "I don't care, as long as it makes a fun game." Dunno how that will turn out, but he's now got the fate of the world on his character. Oh well, the players will decide, or maybe they'll just leave it to me. Probably some of both.

 

[Balesir]

The final authority concept really is the reason that we (i.e. most of us) use dice and don't improve to the nth degree. There are pre-defined boundaries via rules and roles. By sharing authorship, the roles lines start to get muddied. Sharing authorship is probably ok, but it should be done through a filter (i.e. the DM) who can say yes or no (instead of just yes).

OK, with just one (large) "but"...

It doesn't have to be a DM (or even a GM). A solid rules structure will do just as well. Also quoting from experience, and as a long time GM. Roles can fall to different people at different times, as long as the rules are clear as to who does what, when.

 

[pemerton]

We all like the different styles to varying degrees, but at least a little, and have played games that were extreme in each vein, and enjoyed them. This is where "creative agenda" makes some sense, in that it focuses on what you want right now, as opposed to "what kind of player you are."

So I suppose in a strict creative agenda sense, we are people who are changing our creative agenda during a session, sometimes rapidly, and picking up cues from the other players in order to shift seemlessly.

I know it's official doctrine in the Forge/"big model" approach that multiple creative agendas can't be pursued simultaneously, but my experience feels, in practice, a bit closer to yours. To put it in big model terms, the distinction between creative agenda (= the end of play) and techniques (= the means to that end) can in my view sometimes get a bit blurred, especially because the notion of "period of play over which payoff is received" is itself so open-ended.

Talking about 4e in particular: at least some of the engagement with thematic material/expression of thematic concerns is going to happen during combat. But this is also where the techniques used in the game make system mastery and understanding important. And whenever mastery of the system is important, some sort of "step on up" can come into play, even on a modest level, bringing with it the possibility of competitoin for peer esteem. Is this always subordinate at all times in all players to the overall narrativist goal? I'm too involved in the situation to judge this.

I'm more comfortable in saying that prepared modules/adventure paths in what seems to be the received style is something I'm not interested in GMing - so whether or not my players would enjoy it, they're not getting it! I have enjoyed running more sandboxy games in the past, but I think most of my players are not that interested in the "exploration only" approach, and I tend not to be able to help myself from introducing the thematic prodding and poking, so my sandboxes tend to transform into more situation-focused games over time. Recognising that, these days I tend to prefer just to start at that point.

OK, lets just blow the doors off this joint!

<snip>

Lets take this building example. Now, suppose you'd defined when you added this element to your game that the building was really heavily guarded. Is that 'railroading'? I don't think anyone would consider that to be the case.

Sorry, but I want to say "maybe". I need to know a bit more about the example and the context of play. For example, if the whole focus of the game up to this point has been about rescuing something from the building - the princess, the ransom money, the heirloom, the keys to the kingdom, whatever - and from the players' point of view now is the natural point at which this should culminate, then if the GM sets up the situation such that the building is (relative to the mechanical capabilities of the PCs in the game system) impregnable, in effect the GM is railroading the players into missing out on their climax.

Generalising this point - I think that the excuse of "it's not the GM nudging or pushing the players, it's just the GM building the world" is never going to wash if the world that the GM is building is one that thwarts the purposes of the players in their play. (Note that this is obviously very different from thwarting the goals of the PCs - it's very common for the players to want their PCs to be challenged, and to face the risk of being thwarted - in 4e terms, this is what the DC and encounter building guidelines are for.) If the players want to play an exploration game, then it probably serves their purposes to let the GM build the world as s/he sees fit (provided it's not just a crappy or boring world), and in this case then the heavily guarded building probably wouldn't be a railroad. That's why context matters, I think.

I have never experienced a gaming group that used the shared authorship that you linked to. Not to sound too haughty, but it sounds like a bunch of DM-wannabes (or a DM who has problems being in authority). I could see such a group easily having problems because of shared authorship conflicts.

<snip>

One aspect of the gaming community "entitlement" movement is that it trains players that most anything is ok. Any idea is fair game, any PC build is fair game, any stunt is fair game, any feat is fair game. Everything is balanced and ok, and don't worry, the DM will adjust to any minor issues.

I think that there needs to be a fairly clear understanding as to who has what sort of control over what. (Of course, among friends at a relaxed table this understanding can emerge implicitly and organically.)

A few examples from my 4e game: One of the players wrote into his PC's backstory that the PC came from a city - Entekash - that had been sacked and destroyed by orcs and goblins. (This was in response to a direction from me, at the start of the campaign, that every PC had to have a reason to be ready to fight goblins.) This introduced a new city into the gameworld that I hadn't placed there. From my point of view fine, not a problem, I only had a small and local map of the starting area of the campaign, and having that player come from a ruined city was going to feed nicely into a whole lot of 4e thematic stuff like the role of Erathis (goddess of civilisation), the fall of Nerath etc.

A few sessions into the campaign the same PC died in a difficult encounter. I asked the player whether he wanted to keep playing the same PC, or a new one - and he wanted to stick with the same PC. It was already established that the PC was a disciple of the Raven Queen, so it was easy for me to narrate a meeting between the dead PC's spirit and his goddess. But I wanted to know why the Raven Queen would send him back into the world. The encounter in question was happening in Nerathi ruins, with a symbol of Erathis inscribed on one wall. The player suggested that Erathis wanted the PC to come back and recover some sort of artefact hidden beneath the ruins. I agreed with that, and that's what happened (in mechanical terms, the PC came back with Raise Dead penalties, and the cost of a Raise Dead scroll was deducted by me from the next treasure parcel). The artefact was described by the player as a rod that would lead somewhere important by following the path of the old Nerathi roads, and we playd with that idea for a while. Subsequently, after DMG2 came out, I decided that it was also the first part of the Rod of Seven Parts, and this - and the PC's relationship to Erathis more generally - has gone on to be a significant part of the campaign.

In the same encounter, an NPC mage who had been taken prisoner by the party's paladin of the Raven Queen and coerced into coming along with the PCs and helping them was killed. It was already established that the encounter area, as well as being a Nerathi ruin, was infused with necrotic/undead energy. I therefore decided that, at a dramatic moment in the encounter, the dead mage reanimated as a wight and attacked the paladin. The player of the paladin asked if he could speak a prayer to the Raven Queen - I let him make a Religion roll against a Moderate DC as a minor action, and when he succeeded gave him combat advantage against the wight for a round. (Had he failed, I would have inflicted an appropriate amount of damage on his PC as necrotic backlash.) It was clear both to the player and to me that part of the context for this player-initiated action was the prior relationship that had been established, via play, between the NPC and the PC.

A final example. In another encounter in which the PCs were sitting with some elves around the campfire, the player of the renegade drow - who was already established as a Corellon worshipper - explained to me that he was part of a secret society that had members among the elves of the surface world, and that he was making a secret hand signal to see if the captain of these elves responded. I replied that the captain did not, but that the elven crafter did. This later became relevant when the PC in question wanted a dragon tooth made into a wyrmtooth dagger, and has fed into the campaign in other ways.

These are all examples of player authorship in one way or another, but in each case they advanced the game. Part of what works in these cases is that (i) the player's suggested addition to the game fits into the prior established story of that player's PC, and (ii) it's understood by everyone at the table that I, as GM, get to frame the situation, but am generally happy to incorporate player ideas that will enrich it or make it more complex and engaging. The players aren't entitled just to author a solution that difuses the current situation, but my players generally don't try and do that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think that there needs to be a fairly clear understanding as to who has what sort of control over what. (Of course, among friends at a relaxed table this understanding can emerge implicitly and organically.)

Yes, exactly. I want to build on that by going backwards.

I liked your examples as where we are today, but it might also help to use some earlier thoughts, back long before I had ever heard of "shared authorship" or the like, or had even much considered it in game theory manner. Likewise, this was before I knew of "Say Yes" in any of its forms.

To me, there was really three basic options that existed for all game decisions: I cared about something in particular, I was neutral, or I was uninterested. Note that neutral and uninterested can seem similar to on the outside, but aren't--because we are talking about decision points here. So if I'm neutral between door A or door B, I can be engaged in the pick. I merely don't have a preference when the decision making starts. If I'm uninterested, though, I just want the decision made by someone else, preferably quickly, and then get on to something that I find more compelling.

That is pretty dull when you look at only one person, even if they are a Viking-Hat wearing, Chattanooga Choo Choo, Train Driving, fill the session with an Immense Rainbow of Color and Dramatic Voices fool. Or any other extreme you care to pick.

Then somewhere in that early poking around with what made games sing, it also occurred to me that all the players basically broke down into those same three categories. Only their care, neutral, uninterested choices were all somewhat different than mine and each others' choices. Out of these combinations emerged some fairly interesting game play that I had not seen before.

Somewhere in here was where I really got interested in large groups, because as we emphasized the interactions between the particpants, and their different interests, it became apparent that mild conflict, factions, etc. driving the game became exponentially more entertaining with each player introduced, and this increased entertainment could cancel out the negative effects of large groups to some extent (though of course with diminishing returns).

So the very first and most productive way that we explored shared authorship in my current group, when we started over 20 years ago, was that people didn't so much assert narrative control as assert their interests.

Example: LaGesp the mage diplomat meets a cowardly but well spoken goblin. I have no particular interest in this goblin, but she seems interested, so I play along. And of course she wants to know the name of said goblin. I blurt out something, which turns out to be ridiculous. So it becomes a running gag in the game, because who knew she would bring the goblin under her protection so that she could learn to speak "goblin" while on her journey, and the goblin would later become a valued NPC?

I like running gags as much as anyone, but this is precisely the point at which shared narrative control can work so much better, especially since there was a deluge of NPCs that were unimportant, but needed names all the time simply to deal with the occasional one that would spark interest.

Example: Same player, 20 some odd years later. Velvet the wizard meets a military commander. She asks for a name. I say, "I don't know, you tell me." She isn't that interested. So the commander remains simply, "the commander". We don't waste time on it, since no one cares. Later, she meets a halfing merchant. In the course of the conversation, she starts to care. She asks something about the merchant's background. I don't know, and don't care. I say, "You tell me." She makes something up that interest her. Off we go. Later still she meets a minor soldier, who isn't that important in the whole scheme of things, but I find the character interesting. I've got a name and background for the little gnome.

Players express interest. I either fill that interest, OR I defer to that player to fill it. If the player isn't that interested after all, they might opt to not fill it. Then another player gets interested and jumps in--or not. The net result is that if we are spending time on something, it interests someone, and if it interests someone, there is a good chance it will start to interest most of the rest of us. It is contagious.

That is organic growth of narrative control started, in part, by a long ago realization that I didn't need a name for every NPC that the group could possible meet, and even if I did need a name, it wasn't giving away the store to let the players supply the name.

When something really matters to the campaign--i.e. the narrative control that I am not giving up--then I don't give it up. For shared narrative control, you need both soft and hard areas--soft to explore, and hard to butt up against. Having the soft areas means everyone gets to exert some narrative control. Accepting that hard areas have their uses, is a little bit of "judo gaming" that turns the problem of competing narrative control into a virtue.

 

[Greg K]

Collapsing the skill list and going to trained skills over skill points was the best design choice ever.

We will have to disagree. I, and, every gamer I know or talked with off the net consider it one of the worst design choices ever (or one of the top three) for 4e on the players side (as a DM tool it is useful) and is one of the main reasons for not switching or giving the game a try.