The Campaign Builder's Guild

So, here's a thread spawned from a thread spawned to avoid derailing the D&D Next discussion...
But hey, at least it means things are pretty lively around here lately.  :grin:

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI actually think a system-neutral "how can you give more narrative control to players?" tips-and-tricks kind of thread would be pret. ty. boss.

[note=Disclaimer]I will try to keep it system-neutral, but, of course, there are a lot of systems out there with a lot of good ideas, so I do include lots of examples from specific systems. I have incorporated a lot of my thoughts on the matter into my own Asura system, and I am also a fan of FATE, so I'll probably show a little bit of system bias with respect to mentioning these two systems as well.[/note]
Here's my own little treatise on the topic. Feel free to comment and add to it.

Let's start with characters themselves. In some systems, a player's character is the only narrative control they have-- the GM essentially owns the whole setting, and the player's decisions are the only means they have to influence the world. On the other hand, settings that try to impart an aura of "ancient grandeur" or "incomprehensible vastness" and whatever can sometimes leave players feeling like they're just along for the ride. Particularly so when it's something like Forgotten Realms where it's full of powerful NPCs and all kinds of other stuff that you will never be as awesome as ever. So, the first way to give players more narrative control is just to, put simply, ensure they're in a setting where their choices matter. Even if-- or maybe I should say especially if-- it's a system where their choices are essentially the only degree of narrative control they have.

Another thing I think should be avoided in the realm of giving players more narrative control is GURPS-style front-loaded disadvantages. By front-loaded, what I mean is, the disadvantage gives a certain reward at character creation time, but then, as the adventure goes on, the character is expected to act on that disadvantage. And by "is expected" I mean what usually happens is the GM picks up some dice, rolls against the character's resistance or whatever, and then tells the character what they do. While it can be argued that you "approved" this at character creation time by taking the disadvantage, it can be kind of jarring when it happens, and certainly takes away narrative control in that very moment. I think it also actively discourages the roleplaying of one's faults because the GM will just enforce the fault on you anyway when it's necessary, so why cripple yourself for no gain when it's not? Contrast this to something like FATE (and, I believe, nWoD has a similar mechanic) where flaws grant nothing at character creation time, but give a mechanical reward, which I will generically call "Awesome Points," for playing them out when the proper time comes during play. Players can sacrifice their Awesome Points to resist giving into the fault, or gain more of them by playing the fault to the hilt. The system should probably encourage players to point out to the GM opportunities for the fault to give them trouble-- and players will do so, because there's something in it for them, too.

So what do these Awesome Points do? Well, generally speaking-- and fitting the topic of this thread-- they allow more player control. Just like players get the points by playing their faults, spending the points lets them take full advantage of their strengths. The exact nomenclature varies by system, but the main mark of any system like this is that you can exert a degree of control that couldn't otherwise. Truthfully, the notion of points to spend to get some mechanical advantage isn't that esoteric, but systems that have them tightly integrated into their core (and not just bolted on like D&D Action Points, for example) generally allow a good bit more. For example, in FATE, players can use a point to make a declaration, which effectively lets the player make an assertion about the game world that was unknown before.

One challenge with giving players more narrative control is ensuring the setting nonetheless remains consistent. Admittedly, it does create a certain Schrödingeresque dynamic when things that are unknown and unseen are essentially amorphous, waiting to be defined by a declaration, but I think that no setting is ever as detailed as inquisitive players want, and the GM has to make up this kind of stuff on the fly anyway. Why not let players join in the process? Personally, I think it actually adds to immersion, because it gives the player a sense of ownership in the setting and the game-- and that's a good thing. The GM always has veto power over completely crazy declarations, anyway, but if the group is interested in creating a cooperative, shared world (and if the idea of giving the group of players more narrative control is on the table, I think they would be!) this is rarely a problem.

Even without any sort of broad declarations, one way to let players feel like they have more narrative control and are helping to guide the story is to permit a lot of leeway in what characters are able to do, when all that is really changing is the look and feel, as opposed to anything with mechanical relevance. Basically, only tactically significant actions actually affect the game mechanics. If a player wants to describe some crazy stunt of running up, swinging off a chandelier, and delivering a flying kick an enemy's face, let him describe it in a fun, audacious manner. Mechanically, it's still just a kick, so, in the interest of helping the players to feel like they have some control over the flow of the story, there's no need to give a penalty just for trying to put some flair into it. Exalted, being all about being the over the top, actually gives bonuses for that kind of stuff.

Wushu has an interesting mechanic called the "Principle of Narrative Truth." The basic idea of this is what the player says happens, happens (the GM still has veto power over absolute crazy stuff, of course) and the GM (and everyone else) has to reconcile the mechanics with the narrative. If the story goes that one of the mooks got killed, but the mechanics say he didn't-- why, another one runs in, of course. Or the dead one rises as a zombie. Or whatever other wackiness the GM wants to dream up. Admittedly, this can get kind of crazy, and Wushu is definitely a light system. Asura has a version of the PoNT, keeps things under control by only allowing it to take place during the spending of one's "Awesome Points."

Some systems can go even further than that, where the players and GM essentially draw up a contract of what "success" means, what "failure" means, and what's at stake. It becomes much less about a player trying something and seeing what happens in the GM's world, and more about deciding what to risk on a roll of the dice, with clearly defined stakes-- that the player helped to define-- both ways. I haven't played it, but I believe Burning Wheel works this way. This can sometimes break up the flow of roleplaying, and I don't believe it does wonders for immersion, but it does really help in the sense of crafting a shared story, and these sorts of "negotiations" might be something GMs who want to give over some fairly high-level narrative control to their players should consider.

So, here we go. I'm sure there are other things I have forgotten to mention or just plain haven't thought of, so hopefully others will contribute.

There's a lot of stuff here and I hope to be able to get into it in great detail later in the week when time permits, but I will say that these are the sorts of issues that have led me to put a lot of my projects on hold until I figure out what to do with them.

I definitely want to incorperate something like this into my games. I'm not sure if it is system neutral or not, or if the system really needs to support it. If it were clearly spelled out in the beginning, I think even a system with nothing like this could exist. And I like the idea of giving out "awesome points" for players simply being awesome; it gets them more into the game. I would also absolutely love getting my players more involved in the definition of my world.

One that I forgot to mention is the mechanic of letting a single player control multiple characters. This obviously increases the amount of influence the player has over the game world, even without any other factors like introducing points or the like. Obviously, a more lightweight system is probably necessary for this kind of thing-- OD&D did it well, but I think it would be a real challenge with 3e or PF. Ars Magica takes this approach.

In case controlling two or more full-fledged PCs is something the players can't or don't want to do, I'm pretty sure some of the benefits of this approach can be derived by giving players more say over the actions of certain key NPCs. The default model is that the GM "owns" every character that isn't a PC, but there is no reason that necessarily has to be the case. I guess this makes them not really NPCs any more, so more like, semi-PCs? They don't need full character sheets and the GM can worry about their actions when they're not "in focus," but this allows the players to exert control and have influence over things and places their own main PC wouldn't.

One small trick I've come across is the Mountain Witch trick, which I think can be used in just about any game. It's named for the game that introduced it.

The Mountain Witch trick is very simple: as the GM, you give a player a general bit of information, and ask them for the specific details.

"A specific tombstone in the cemetery catches your eye-- whose is it?"
"As you walk through the gloomy cathedral, the statuary chills your blood-- what's so disturbing about it?"
"Now that you've got a closer look, the beggar on the corner is a person from your past-- who?"

QuoteIn case controlling two or more full-fledged PCs is something the players can't or don't want to do, I'm pretty sure some of the benefits of this approach can be derived by giving players more say over the actions of certain key NPCs. The default model is that the GM "owns" every character that isn't a PC, but there is no reason that necessarily has to be the case. I guess this makes them not really NPCs any more, so more like, semi-PCs? They don't need full character sheets and the GM can worry about their actions when they're not "in focus," but this allows the players to exert control and have influence over things and places their own main PC wouldn't.

I've had some fun doing this even when it wasn't explicitly part of the game. I was playing the "guy who has lots of connections" type of character in a system that didn't really support that very well at all mechanically, and would every so often greet a random NPC cluegiver like an old friend. (The GM, to his credit, took this in stride and went along with it.)

Most of the time, this didn't seem to affect much at all, except for allowing me as a player to affect the world in extremely minor ways and feel that type of character was supported by the game (when, based on the rules themselves, it mostly wasn't).

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI was playing the "guy who has lots of connections" type of character in a system that didn't really support that very well at all mechanically, and would every so often greet a random NPC cluegiver like an old friend.

What system was it?

I've noticed that many systems try in some way or other to model the amount of social influence you have, and making good use of this is one way that players can feel like they're having some effect on the game world-- which translates, of course, to a degree of narrative control. Modeling a level of social influence is something I've been pondering for Asura, for quite some time now. The FATE approach of making it a skill is tempting, but it doesn't really align with the definition of what skills are in Asura, because they're linked with a set of core traits and more directly correspond to things you can do.I think there's also the distinction between just knowing people, and actually getting those people you know to actively help you. If the PC knows anyone who's anyone, but they'll do little more than give the time of day, the player (and the character) is ultimately still mostly along for the ride. GURPS makes a distinction between contacts, social status, influence, and such. I wonder if all these kinds of distinction are really necessary, or if another axis of how much you can "mobilize" your contacts is really all that's required... and, of course, how to model it, whatever it ends up being.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
One small trick I've come across is the Mountain Witch trick, which I think can be used in just about any game. It's named for the game that introduced it.

The Mountain Witch trick is very simple: as the GM, you give a player a general bit of information, and ask them for the specific details.

"A specific tombstone in the cemetery catches your eye-- whose is it?"
"As you walk through the gloomy cathedral, the statuary chills your blood-- what's so disturbing about it?"
"Now that you've got a closer look, the beggar on the corner is a person from your past-- who?"

QuoteIn case controlling two or more full-fledged PCs is something the players can't or don't want to do, I'm pretty sure some of the benefits of this approach can be derived by giving players more say over the actions of certain key NPCs. The default model is that the GM "owns" every character that isn't a PC, but there is no reason that necessarily has to be the case. I guess this makes them not really NPCs any more, so more like, semi-PCs? They don't need full character sheets and the GM can worry about their actions when they're not "in focus," but this allows the players to exert control and have influence over things and places their own main PC wouldn't.

I've had some fun doing this even when it wasn't explicitly part of the game. I was playing the "guy who has lots of connections" type of character in a system that didn't really support that very well at all mechanically, and would every so often greet a random NPC cluegiver like an old friend. (The GM, to his credit, took this in stride and went along with it.)

Most of the time, this didn't seem to affect much at all, except for allowing me as a player to affect the world in extremely minor ways and feel that type of character was supported by the game (when, based on the rules themselves, it mostly wasn't).

This [Mountain Witch trick] sounds awesome. It may start taking place in Haveneast...

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI was playing the "guy who has lots of connections" type of character in a system that didn't really support that very well at all mechanically, and would every so often greet a random NPC cluegiver like an old friend.

What system was it?

Serenity (Cortex), based on the Firefly television series. It's not really a very good or interesting or memorable system; honestly I wouldn't bother with it.

QuoteI've noticed that many systems try in some way or other to model the amount of social influence you have, and making good use of this is one way that players can feel like they're having some effect on the game world.... GURPS makes a distinction between contacts, social status, influence, and such. I wonder if all these kinds of distinction are really necessary, or if another axis of how much you can "mobilize" your contacts is really all that's required... and, of course, how to model it, whatever it ends up being.

I had a wild notion a while ago to model social stats on the kind of "critical hit location chart" you see especially in older games, where you have a general stat (HP) that sometimes gets affected in specific ways (a hit to the arm, vs. a hit to the eyes, vs. a hit to the stomach, etc.). It made me think of representing the facets of a character's social powers like organs of a body, such that a social setback could be said to affect the reputation or specific contacts or specific relationships, each with individual effects.

QuoteThis [Mountain Witch trick] sounds awesome. It may start taking place in Haveneast...

I haven't had very much chance to try it out myself, but I love it in concept. I like it because it makes me feel better, as a GM, dictating PCs' emotions or other responses, which I feel is at least as much fun as allowing players to dictate minor bits of world color.

I feel uneasy saying things like "the photos of the crimescene chill your blood", because maybe a given PC is a hardened investigator who sees this stuff every day or whatever, has some reason to not be phased by crimescene photos. But I feel fine saying "the photos that spill out of the envelope chill your blood-- what are they photos of?" because although I've dictated an emotion, the player is the one making the association about what their character is so strongly affected by, so it a.) lets them retain ownership of their character and b.) pushes them to divulge more information about their character's thoughts/emotions and c.) gives them the opportunity to up the ante of the scene if they wish.
Frankly that sounds sort of corny and dumb even to me, but maybe there's nowhere to go from that but up!

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI had a wild notion a while ago to model social stats on the kind of "critical hit location chart" you see especially in older games, where you have a general stat (HP) that sometimes gets affected in specific ways (a hit to the arm, vs. a hit to the eyes, vs. a hit to the stomach, etc.). It made me think of representing the facets of a character's social powers like organs of a body, such that a social setback could be said to affect the reputation or specific contacts or specific relationships, each with individual effects.

I rather like the idea, but, if you have one, I would love a more concrete example in order to fully grasp what you mean.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI feel uneasy saying things like "the photos of the crimescene chill your blood", because maybe a given PC is a hardened investigator who sees this stuff every day or whatever, has some reason to not be phased by crimescene photos.

I don't like doing this, either. One of the design goals of Asura (and one that leads to some kind of weird mechanics) is the idea of avoiding telling players what their characters (at least consciously) think and feel.

I don't really have a better example at this time-- it's all still pretty vague and unformed.

I think there are a few distinctions worth making here. First, as always, mechanics, setting and campaign go hand in hand, so what system you need depends directly on what kind of game you are playing. I think the most important dichotomy here is between narrative and immersive games: are you telling a story (together) or playing a character? (of course, there are also plain DM-driven games, which would either fall in the latter category or pursue a more gaming-oriented style)
If it's the former a wider sphere of influence on how the game plays out is only natural, but in case of the latter each player should probably retain complete control over his own character and his own character only.

I think your point about pre-packaged disadvantages is a valid one, and that the incentive is central to a proper (and awesome) narrative control/roleplaying meta-mechanic. Although it doesn't have to be a positive incentive per se! One of my own unplayed RPG darlings is Unhallowed Metropolis which has an odd little vice mechanic: everyone has a vice, and it does affect your interaction with the world, but where it really shines is how you can exacerbate it by making a deal with the devil to get out of a sticky spot. The more consumed by your vice you are, the easier it is for you to field these minor mechanical benefit. [spoiler=the actual mechanics]Mechanically, you have three vices/"corruptions", each with a point value, and you get a  number of rerolls per day equal to the maximum score. Using more rerolls means you have to increase the value of a corruption, and in addition you can strike the aforementioned deal to extricate yourself from *any* situation, but always at the cost of a point
[/spoiler]
Of course, this mechanic is tailor-made to the rather dark setting and would be an ill fit in many other games.

Another interesting approach I have stumbled across recently is the system Ourobouros (I believe it's free on drive-thru) which employs an interesting variant of the margin of success mechanic seen in other games. Essentially, for every roll-worthy task (like swinging on a rope to attack the pirate or saving the child from the flaming building) the DM states a number of Details (can't remember the official name), essentially a bullet-point list describing the task. The details are in natural language and are prefaced by either "It might" or "you could". In general, "it mights" will always happen" and "you could"s won't. For every success you get, you can make an "It might" disappear or make a "you could" take place.  
So if we take the "Swinging from a rope" as an example, this is the list the book gives us:
[ic]
You're about to swing from a sinking ship to
another one, during a fight
> It might get you tangled, in the lines on the other
ship.
> It might hurt, with you bashing into something on
the way.
> You could land in a place your foes aren't
expecting, giving you a bonus to attack.
[/ic]
So you could land scot-free, you could get hurt, get hurt and tangled, get hurt but land in an opportune location, or any combination of them! Also, as the book points out, note that there is no option corresponding to "failure". You can have tasks completely without the option of failure - this can of course be tuned to the taste of DMs and players alike.  
This is cool because it never forces the player's hand, keeps the GM in control (for better and for worse), while still allowing the players to have a say in what happens!
As a whole, the system isn't superb, but there are some great ideas sprinkled throughout so it's worth taking a gander.

Quote from: Superfluous CrowI think the most important dichotomy here is between narrative and immersive games: are you telling a story (together) or playing a character?

Calling it a dichotomy is, I think, oversimplifying. I don't want to get into a debate about "narrativist" or "simulationist" or whatever gaming, because that's been done to death and usually just ends with everyone realizing that the labels aren't mutually exclusive categories. So, that's the only point I'm trying to make to begin with: there are a lot of "shades of grey" in between them. The goal of the game might be a shared story, but in that shared story, the primary contribution of each player is the actions of their own character-- for me, this is often how a game of FATE feels. On the other hand, even in a more simulationist/immersive/whatever game, the player's mind is going to fill in all kinds of little details that the GM didn't necessarily describe, so the player then going on and filling those in as part of the character's actions are both enriching the immersion and exerting some narrative control.

Quote from: Superfluous CrowSo you could land scot-free, you could get hurt, get hurt and tangled, get hurt but land in an opportune location, or any combination of them! Also, as the book points out, note that there is no option corresponding to "failure".

I really want to (and in Asura, I have tried to) get away from the classic "skill check" paradigm of "Roll the dice; if you meet the number you succeed, and if you don't you fail. Failure usually just means you can't do what you were trying to do." I much prefer the idea of failure having interesting consequences that introduce complications that make the game more fun, not less. Even without a lot of narrative control in the hands of the player, interesting failure consequences are a lot better and more fun than "you're stuck, now what" or "rocks fall, everyone dies" kinds of failures, but allowing the players themselves to shape what their failure means can be a great way to grant some narrative control. This sort of "it might/you could" list is sort of neat, but I wonder if it wouldn't bog down the game if used often, or feel too disruptive to the flow or RP, immersion, or whatever. Obviously, if the attack bonus was something that could be gotten every time a stunt like this happened, characters would be swinging around like Tarzan solely to get the attack bonus all the time-- kind of a silly example, but you see what I'm saying.

One thing that FATE does (Asura has something like this too) is that if you fail catastrophically at an action, or get hurt in combat and take a lot of damage, or whatever, you have to take a "Consequence" (basically a thing that can come back and bite you later on) but the game doesn't really explicitly state what that consequence is, and they're all treated mechanically basically the same. So, the emphasis is on the players and GM deciding how the situation affected the character and working together to come up with a result of failure that feels suitable for the situation in which the failure happened.

I brought up the quasi-dichotomy since I had a very specific gaming experience, the culmination of which is a great example of how this is an important thing to take into consideration. [spoiler=overly long gaming anecdote]We were playing a loose narrative game called "the Venetian Tragedy" (by Jason Morgenstern of "Fiasco" fame) which gave the character a particular role and a series of relationships, as well as a secret personal goal, and a "destiny" which wasn't aimed at you, but rather at the player to your left, and you were then supposed to steer the story towards outcomes in line with this destiny. The player was very narrativistic in its structure and everyone always had a say in what was going on (following a few loose rules of meta-game communication) and there was no plot as such, it instead developed organically from the combination of destinies and personal goals and ambitions and relationships. It is one of the best gaming experiences I have had. But, to my surprise, the other players didn't like it very much. They felt the interactive storytelling dominated the game, making it difficult to immerse in their roles.
I believe this is just a case of differing tastes, but I thought it was interesting that we came away from the game with two so very different opinions.[/spoiler]

Yeah, I agree, the lists would bog down the gameplay quickly, but it's a great idea anyway. They mention that a few tasks will quickly become "standard" in each gaming group, avoiding the need for reciting the list, but still. And most resolution mechanics break the flow, I don't know what it would require to make a resolution mechanism that fits seamlessly with the roleplaying experience (let that be the subject of spawned thread #3!)

On the subject of failure, the aforementioned UnMet system is actually built around the idea that you will play out your character's fall from grace/heroic demise. And of course, there are a lot of one-shot campaigns and games. That being said, failure should (preferably) be at least as interesting as success!