Letting Players Narrate in the Game?

[JoeGKushner]

One of the things that the DMG2 focused a bit on in the early chapters was allowing the players some on game narration in the setting.

I haven't used the technique too much myself. I generlaly have no problem with players having fairly extnesive backgrounds and changing soem canon around to accomidate player requests but haven't done a lot with players determining thing as is outside of some minor elements.

There have been games that I've allowed players a bit more flexibility in crafting some of the background of the world as well thanks to broad strokes of their own background in terms of organizations that parents/allies/etc... may have belonged to and things that they wanted to get ouf of the campaign itself but it's not quite the same thing.

Have other people? How has that went? Would you do it again?

 

[Zaukrie]

I play with a DM (occasionally) who does this a lot. It seems to work really well. One player may have gotten a tad carried away, but overall, it has led to more of what the players want the game to be, while staying within the overall story the DM has built. It is a much more collaborative feel.

I've tried to do that a little as a DM, but have not succeeded as much.

 

[Redcrow]

I try to encourage the players to use a bit of narration. First I started by getting them to describe the wounds their character receives in combat. Afterall, if its the GMs job to describe the wounds delivered to the opposition, why not have the players narrate the wounds their characters receive.

After the players feel comfortable with that I will encourage further narration for non-combat scenes, but usually ask them to limit themselves to only a sentence or two to keep things moving. What I have found seems to help the most is getting the players to refer to their characters in 'third person' rather than 'first person'. Its just my opinion but I think it is easier to envision a character doing something when they are referred to by name rather than the player narrating as "I" which might lead to picturing the player rather than the character. YMMV

 

[Kzach]

I think in a group of mature, reasonable people who have a good grasp of story, conflict, characterisation and most importantly resolution, this sort of narrative gaming style could work really well.

The problem is finding those people.

Every time I've attempted this sort of thing, it has been with new players, and inevitably there is always at least one person who just doesn't get it. They go too far, make their character too epic and disproportionate to the group and even their character's level and actual abilities. They spin something impossible or illogical or just plain stupid.

Examples have included the 1st-level character who killed an army single-handed, ala Chinese movies like Red Cliff, or in-game narrations like killing the king they're talking to, whilst surrounded by the entire court and guards and being thirty feet away.

Some people, in fact I'd say most people, don't really understand that they have to work within reasonable and logical limitations for such narrative interactions. Being on the run because you assassinated the emperor and all his elite guards, both of which have legendary status as being nigh invincible (in your own words) at 1st-level just isn't going to happen.

 

[IronWolf]

I am totally open to the idea of allowing players narrate in game and build some of the world background. I do this all the time in PbP games and it really seems to work well in that format. I attribute that largely to it allowing a more frequent poster to have something to do while we wait for others to post.

I am also open to this in my pen and paper games. If a character has been in a city for awhile and wants to run with some details about the inn or bunkhouse they are residing, go for it. As long as they are reasonable I can easily work it into the context of the game world. It can help add depth and future plot hooks into the game with the collaborative building.

I have not had anyone abuse this adding to the narrative since I've been gaming, so my experiences and opinion are certainly shaped by that.

 

[Camelot]

I recently came to the conclusion that each individual player should have as much control over the story as the DM. However, when I try putting that in practise (by telling my players that they can suggest plot changes at any time), I find that many players would rather sit back and let the DM pull them along.

This could just be a lot of my players' style, but I think it could be that they've fallen into that trap of thinking that the DM controls the story and I do what he or she says, which they should not think.

Sometimes, when players come up with crazy concepts for characters, instead of telling them that the rules don't allow it, I'll homebrew rules to allow it while making it still balanced. This makes the players feel their character is much more unique, and that they contributed something, which are both true. If you aren't good at homebrewing, ask someone on EN World to help!

 

[Umbran]

Every time I've attempted this sort of thing, it has been with new players...

Well, yes, that's your problem right there.

Some people, in fact I'd say most people, don't really understand that they have to work within reasonable and logical limitations for such narrative interactions.

With running up to seven billion people on the planet, only a few million of which have ever played tabletop RPGs, this isn't surprising. Most of the examples they see in books and media have the characters start out, or super-rapidly become, major players on the world stage.

So, I think you're correct - folks have to learn the context of RPGs before you can pull this off reliably.

But, once they know the context, it can be good stuff. I've a habit of handing large chunks of entire cultures over to players: "You're playing the only dwarf in the party? Well, then dwarves are pretty much yours. How do you want them to be?"

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I give my players huge amounts of narrative power. Ideally, I'm the person speaking the least at the table, because if a player is talking to another player, I can pretty well guarantee that at least two people are engaged in the game, and usually everyone else is listening, too. I see my games as a series of prompts and situations for players to express their own creativity. Players get comfortable with each other, learn that it's a safe place to take risks, and consistently impress me with their creativity.

I love to play with new narrative styles, and that often means involving the players more. I made a rule in one game: the first time a player rolls a 20 on a particular kind of roll, he gets to give us a flashback to a time when he learned that skill. In another game, I had the rule: narrate it interestingly or roll the dice--people actually chose to fail at tasks in that game pretty often, because it made a more interesting story. And I just started running a Play-By-Post game that began with a writing prompt: anything goes, just introduce your character in an interesting way (with a twist at the end of each piece). I'm very excited about the prospects for that game.

If your players aren't used to telling stories off the cuff and narrating, it's best to take it slow. In one game with a group of tactician-style gamers (nothing wrong with that, mind you, I'm just no good at it), I introduced the Kill Shot rule: you kill it, you narrate its last moments. Started out pretty tame and awkward, but soon they were smashing enemies through doors, pinning them to walls with arrows, and silently lowering their bodies to the ground to avoid alerting other enemies in the area. Then, I started giving them simple prompts: Describe your lord's castle. What do you see on the alchemist's shelf? How does the goblin's armor smell? They still got to enjoy the tactics that made the game fun for them, but they also learned that they enjoy narrative gaming, too.

GM control? Pfah! I mostly just serve drinks and give them scenarios. The players improvise the rest.

 

[Rel]

Coincidentally with this thread I was just reading that part of the DMG2 and coincidentally made this suggestion to our DM on Monday night (the same DM is coincidentally going to be at my house to help me move a refrigerator in about half an hour -- what the hell is going on here!?).

This guy is new to DMing even though he's been in our gaming group for about 20 years. He's pretty good at running the game but admitted that he's not good at making up details on the fly. As an example, we found a chest that had some dwarven coins in it and I asked if there were any markings on it that might hint at its origins (because my character is a sort of do-gooder that might want to return the contents to the rightful owners). He struggled a bit with that and then said something like, "Um...it looks like it maybe has the marks of a merchant clan." Which was a fine answer as far as I was concerned.

After the game he gave what I thought was an unnecessary apology for not having a better answer to that question. That's when I told him about the concept of putting it back on the players and how, as far as I was concerned, it was a completely valid approach to shared worldbuilding. I advised that the next time one of us asks, "Are there any markings on the chest that might hint at its origins?" then he should reply, "Yes there are. Why don't you tell us about them?"

I find it fairly easy to come up with stuff like that on the fly (my biggest challenge is writing it down quickly enough to remember it later). But I really love being surprised as a GM. So I'm thinking I might try and employ this technique more myself. It gives insight into the players preferences and can move the game in unexpected directions, which I think is fun.

I think what I might do is ask the player that prompted the question to give a brief bit of "lore" that their character knows about the situation at hand and then turn to a different player and ask, "Can you tell me one more thing about this?" That spreads the responsibility around and also might puts another players input into the mix. I think it might produce some fun results.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I recently came to the conclusion that each individual player should have as much control over the story as the DM. However, when I try putting that in practise (by telling my players that they can suggest plot changes at any time), I find that many players would rather sit back and let the DM pull them along.

This could just be a lot of my players' style, but I think it could be that they've fallen into that trap of thinking that the DM controls the story and I do what he or she says, which they should not think.

Sometimes, when players come up with crazy concepts for characters, instead of telling them that the rules don't allow it, I'll homebrew rules to allow it while making it still balanced. This makes the players feel their character is much more unique, and that they contributed something, which are both true. If you aren't good at homebrewing, ask someone on EN World to help!

This can definitely be the case, and I don't really see it as a bad thing. Some players would rather have no hand in it, and just see the story unfold and react to their actions. It can be a bit jarring as a player to come with both an action and a reaction. Part of the fun is not knowing what the reaction will be.

If the player kills a member of the King's royal guard out of self defense or what have you, it would be weird to the traditional player if the DM asked, "Okay, what do you want to happen?" If the player says no one knows about it and he or she does not get pursued, that makes sort of a lame story especially if the player's word is final. If the player says he is pursued, that's counter intuitive to the kind of game D&D is. It would be like opting to be critically hit. I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't think it meshes with the game strengths of Dungeons and Dragons.

Now, coming up with world details and whatnot simply because the DM doesn't really care if dwarves are mountain folk, hill folk, forest folk, or all of the above, is a different issue completely. Allowing active narration of what's going on in the present game time is what is not necessarily a good thing for every group.

That said, in other types of games, such as Spirit of the Century, this collaborative story telling is expected and encouraged. To be honest though, when I tried Spirit of the Century, our fairly open-minded group still couldn't bring ourselves to spend fate points to change the story really. It was just more fun for us to have the story, for the most part, revealed to us. Like a novel.