Giving In to Player Narrative Control
Posted on : 10-08-2011 | By : Brian | In : News, Role-Playing Games
1
First, some housekeeping. I feel like I’ve become somewhat satiated on D&D of late. I still enjoy going to Encounters (mainly because I like the people I get to hang out with), but I deliberately did not play any D&D at GenCon because I simply didn’t want to. As such, you’ll you’ll likely see a lot less D&D coverage on this site than you have in the past. Quite frankly, I’m a lot more excited at the moment by the things that are going on in the indie scene; there are a ton of games out there I want to play (some of which I now own, thanks to GenCon), and I’ll probably be talking about them.
Now, on a tangentially related note, I want to talk about something I saw on Twitter this morning. Angry DM, who generally gives some pretty solid advice, said something that I disagree with pretty vehemently. I’m having trouble finding the exact quote, but it boils down to “asking your players to participate in world-building is like asking a demolition crew to help you move your car.”
Now, before you say it, I know Angry DM’s schtick. I realize that his tongue is planted at least a little bit in his cheek. I’m not saying that this quote makes him a bad player or DM.
That does not, however, mean that it’s not worth discussing, because it does raise some interesting points.
First off, a lot of DMs/GMs out there are hesitant to approach collaborative world-building. Many probably feel a sense of ownership over the world, and fear the exact thing that Angry DM is satirizing here. A lot of DMs/GMs probably feel a very real sense of antagonism, maybe stemming from a sense of not being appreciated.
If this is you, take a breath. Player agency isn’t the enemy; it can help supercharge your game if you let it. There’s a lot of imagination in the room when you sit down to game, and if you can harness it you can make your game that much better.
It’s perfectly okay to start small. The next time your PCs enter a room and you tell them there’s a fresco on the wall, point to one of the PCs and ask, “What does it look like?” The next time some oracle murmurs a portentious prophecy about one of your PCs, ask, “What does she say?”
This is scary, and I understand that. Giving up control is very scary when you’re used to having it. But it’s their world, too, and coming to that realization can make the game better for everyone.
The second issue that the quote raises is the game being played: D&D. System matters when it comes to player agency and narrative control. It can be done in D&D, but one of the reasons it’s so scary is that there’s nothing in the system that supports it. There are no mechanics that speak to players gaining narrative control. There is no collaborative world-building mechanic.
A good way to learn to utilize these techniques if you’re not familiar with them is to read, and then play, a game that does support these kinds of concepts. I don’t mean just a game where those kinds of things are possible; I mean a game that explicitly grants players narrative control, a game that explicitly shares the world-building load. There are a ton of them out there: The Dresden Files, Mortal Coil, Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple. I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention Bulldogs! here, though you’re likely tired of hearing about it.
Branching out from D&D to try things that take more mechanical risks can help your D&D play when you return to it. Once you grow more comfortable with sharing the narrative load with your players through rules systems that encourage and even require it, you’ll find it that much easier to implement such techniques in games like D&D, which do not speak to those kinds of mechanics or techniques.




