Quote from: Elliot Wilen;362701If you just take it for granted that people favor immersion and exploration of the fictional world, then all your bemused objections melt away.

Exactly, that's simply the difference between Immersive Roleplaying and Narrative Roleplaying.  If you prefer NRPG's, you have no problem with a character molding the setting at will to improve his story.  If you prefer IRPG's, the reality of the setting being in flux to such a degree defeats the whole point of RPing in the first place.  "Ownership", "agency" and all the other Narrative terms are essentially meaningless to an IRPGer.  The players manipulate the setting through the actions of their characters, they do not manipulate the setting directly, as a player, to further a narrative purpose.

Not referring to anyone in particular, but I have found that discussing this topic frequently shows that IRPGers tend to understand the NRPGer point of view, they just don't like playing that way.  On the contrary, I think a lot of NRPGers simply don't get the IRPG point of view, tying Immersion/Sim in with railroading, GM power trips and the like.  Again, I think that's mainly due to bad GMs.  If you've never had an awesome Immersive campaign, it's probably hard to believe just how fun it can be.

Oh, I think people may not enjoy the immersive style. But I certainly agree that many criticisms of the "power arrangement" used to foster that style are misplaced, mainly coming from experiences with GM-centric "storytelling". Among people in whom the storytelling paradigm is deeply ingrained, it's easier to envision shared narration than moving away from story altogether.

Quote from: two_fishes;362555this is the sort of patronizing attitude that i mentioned bothered me upthread. your response is to completely pervert the player's contribution to the fiction and you don't seem to have any reason beyond, "i'm the dm and it's my game, so i'm the only one who's allowed to create elements of the fictional game world on the fly." if you do have a reason, like that mentioned upthread, where someone said that sort of play ruins his sense of immersion, that's something i can accept. but objecting to it because... why? it intrudes on your authori-TEH? that strikes me  as childish, especially given the insulting way you suggest subverting the contribution.

All I can think of happening at my table, is the players with open mouthed expressions of confusion when the so called champions of honor are mentioned by some player out of the blue. But hell you want to roll with it- we could spin some plot about the unfair and untrue accusations that disbanded your champions group and create some compelling narrative and adventure securing your place in the kingdom once again. It sure would be nice to have some clue what this groups relation to the game world is though, (filling out the narrative so to speak), and generally for that, a considerate heads up talk with the GM before the game would seem somewhat appropriate to me.
 
The way in which elements of narrative are introduced in the example strikes me as synthetic and as with most if not all synthetic elements it tends towards destroying immersion. Another good example of this is the first iteration of skill challenges in 4e, where running an organic, (non-immersion breaking), challenge using the rules as they are is a near impossibility. But the point is a seamless immersion, (or more seamless, as the case probably is), requires a firmer built narrative that has less in game player input into world building, though this does not necessarily preclude working with the GM before games to build your characters place in the world. If however you are not so worried about immersion then I imagine the shared narrative technique building 'on the fly' as you say would work fine for your own games.

Quote from: Sigmund;362679And which is what I mentioned at the earlier stages of the thread.

Bwah? Are you kidding me?

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?

They do!
They do!

Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?

They do!
They do!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who made Steve Gutenberg...a star?

They do!

This.

QuoteDM: "The duke seems very angry with you for barging into his meeting."
PC: "Nah, the duke is my friend, I've known him for years, and my character always barges in like that. He's cool with it."

DM: "The king asks you to get the herb Jandiar to complete the cure to the disease. It grows in the distant mounta- "
PC: "Nah, we don't need that, there's another herb called Pullouttamiass that works just as well. It grows in the forest 5 minutes from here."

DM: "The great red dragon pulls back to breathe fire."
PC: "I whip out a carrot and toss it at the dragon. As of 2 seconds ago, red dragons are deathly allergic to carrots and the irritation prevents them from using their breath weapon. Also 1 round later, the dragon dies. "

PS. With thanks to TheGamingDen.

The actual example in the DMG2 gives no such benefit, though. (In fact the invention of the Champions of Honor basically cue the DM to come up with some ideas for the group's history and set up some bandit encounters, thus creating more detail for the campaign world).

I dont buy the immersion thing. (Or the hilarious acronyms "IRPG" or "NRPG").

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362809The actual example in the DMG2 gives no such benefit, though. (In fact the invention of the Champions of Honor basically cue the DM to come up with some ideas for the group's history and set up some bandit encounters, thus creating more detail for the campaign world).

I dont buy the immersion thing. (Or the hilarious acronyms "IRPG" or "NRPG").

How can it not give any benefit? The example mentions the PC group being challenged at the gate of a town. The player then introduces this alleged group his character is a member of and who's emblem is displayed on his shield that apparently has been prominently active in the very area the town occupies, protecting "the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!" How would the guards not have heard of such a group? The DM will now have to scramble to come up with why the guards either haven't heard of the group or why they didn't recognize the emblem. On top of all that, if the brief history of the group is allowed to stand, the DM would be hard pressed to further block the entrance of the party into the town, since the "Champions of Honor" is so instrumental in defending the region. This all would be fixed by simply giving the DM a heads-up and/or discussing actual details with the DM before introducing this fiction in-game.

What part of "the immersion thing" don't you get, we can try to help you understand.

Quote from: Sigmund;362833How can it not give any benefit? The example mentions the PC group being challenged at the gate of a town. The player then introduces this alleged group his character is a member of and who's emblem is displayed on his shield that apparently has been prominently active in the very area the town occupies, protecting "the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!" How would the guards not have heard of such a group? The DM will now have to scramble to come up with why the guards either haven't heard of the group or why they didn't recognize the emblem. On top of all that, if the brief history of the group is allowed to stand, the DM would be hard pressed to further block the entrance of the party into the town, since the "Champions of Honor" is so instrumental in defending the region. This all would be fixed by simply giving the DM a heads-up and/or discussing actual details with the DM before introducing this fiction in-game.

What part of "the immersion thing" don't you get, we can try to help you understand.

Well, to start with, the idea that the players should be blocked from entering the town. Or it all could be an elaborate bluff- maybe there really is no champions of honor, but the guard doesn't know for sure one way or the other. (Often enough, this is all that happens when a player makes something like this up- it's really part of a bluff. "We work for Big Lou, the great crimelord.. Oh you never heard of Big Lou?...")

But in the example given, the DM incoporates this. What they really get in the end is an extra bandit encounter.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362839Well, to start with, the idea that the players should be blocked from entering the town. Or it all could be an elaborate bluff- maybe there really is no champions of honor, but the guard doesn't know for sure one way or the other. (Often enough, this is all that happens when a player makes something like this up- it's really part of a bluff. "We work for Big Lou, the great crimelord.. Oh you never heard of Big Lou?...")

But in the example given, the DM incoporates this. What they really get in the end is an extra bandit encounter.

If the PCs shouldn't be blocked from entering the town, why were they challenged by the guards at the gate? The DM could simply have had the gates standing open and the guards watching folks enter in order to keep the peace and watch maybe for known fugitives or whatever. So, the fact the example includes the guards challenging the PCs indicates to me that at least a rudimentary level of assurance is required to be allowed to pass the gates. Rather than using the tools provided by the game itself (skills, feats, powers), the player chose to simply make shit up. As part of a bluff, it's expected that a player make shit up, and the DM has recourse to a rules-based procedure for dealing with that situation. That does not describe this situation as it has been quoted by Windjammer. In this example, the player is bypassing both the game rules and the challenge placed before them by the DM with the introduced fiction. If I were a player, especially the player of a character that has been designed to face and defeat exactly this kind of challenge (either through being a great bluff-artist, a skilled diplomat, or capable of magical compulsion), I would be disheartened by this kind of sabotaging of what to me would have been my opportunity to shine. As the DM I would admonish the player that details of this nature need to be discussed first as I might be placing these challenges in the group's way to either allow the other player's character a chance to exercise his/her strengths or to lead into another facet of the overall challenge. Now if the group had discussed their game before starting and it was then expressed that the DM and players were open to this kind of improvisation, then this example is perfectly valid. This idea is not expressed in the example as Windjammer quoted it, however. I'm not going to buy the DMG2 to find out, so if there's an excluded part of the example I'm not aware of please let me know.

Quote from: Sigmund;362841If the PCs shouldn't be blocked from entering the town, why were they challenged by the guards at the gate?

It's a DM technique for setting the tone, or giving the PCs a chance to establish themselvs in character through an introduction.

Quote from: Sigmund;362841The DM could simply have had the gates standing open and the guards watching folks enter in order to keep the peace and watch maybe for known fugitives or whatever. So, the fact the example includes the guards challenging the PCs indicates to me that at least a rudimentary level of assurance is required to be allowed to pass the gates.

Or a buff or diplomacy check! With some roleplaying attached, which is exactly what is happening...

Quote from: Sigmund;362841Rather than using the tools provided by the game itself (skills, feats, powers), the player chose to simply make shit up. As part of a bluff, it's expected that a player make shit up, and the DM has recourse to a rules-based procedure for dealing with that situation. That does not describe this situation as it has been quoted by Windjammer. In this example, the player is bypassing both the game rules and the challenge placed before them by the DM with the introduced fiction. If I were a player, especially the player of a character that has been designed to face and defeat exactly this kind of challenge (either through being a great bluff-artist, a skilled diplomat, or capable of magical compulsion), I would be disheartened by this kind of sabotaging of what to me would have been my opportunity to shine. As the DM I would admonish the player that details of this nature need to be discussed first as I might be placing these challenges in the group's way to either allow the other player's character a chance to exercise his/her strengths or to lead into another facet of the overall challenge. Now if the group had discussed their game before starting and it was then expressed that the DM and players were open to this kind of improvisation, then this example is perfectly valid. This idea is not expressed in the example as Windjammer quoted it, however. I'm not going to buy the DMG2 to find out, so if there's an excluded part of the example I'm not aware of please let me know.

I honestly don't care what you buy or don't. Any rules techniques suggested by Robin Laws are going to have improvisation and creativity specifically highlighted as technique, though.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;362701If you just take it for granted that people favor immersion and exploration of the fictional world, then all your bemused objections melt away.

Except allowing players to add input to the doesn't affect either.

Those who feel adding details to the world will affect their immersion in it don't have to add any details at all. They can participate on a thoroughly traditional level.

I'm not sure how players adding details prevents them from exploring, so I'll just point out again that the players aren't adding a great deal of detail to the world. They're not re-writing the map, so to speak. Moreover, from my experience, players add details relating to their characters, not to the world as a whole.

Seanchai

I'm okay with players adding details- just not in the middle of a play session. I follow the same guide line when it comes to making houserules- if there is something in place I wont change it in the middle of play.
I am also not married to either of these ways of doing things.

Quote from: Sigmund;362841That does not describe this situation as it has been quoted by Windjammer. (...) This idea is not expressed in the example as Windjammer quoted it, however. I'm not going to buy the DMG2 to find out, so if there's an excluded part of the example I'm not aware of please let me know.

There isn't. For completeness' sake, however, I'm going to give you the full info on Descriptive Control. I'll also update my OP accordingly.

DMG 2 CONTENT UPDATE

Quote from: DMG 2, page 17 Descriptive Control

When you grant partial descriptive control to your players, you allow them to specify what they see and hear in a scene.

A daring DM might let the PCs play in this sandbox if he or she feels confident enough to countermand advantages that players try to sneak into the situation.

The DM's Workshop sidebars "Tentacle Temple" and "Forks in the Road" provide examples of descriptive control.

Ok folks, now for the examples. Not in quotation blocks because I hate all- italics.

-----------

DMG 2, page 18: DM's Workshop: Tentacle Temple

In this example of a direct assertion, the party has entered a demon-occupied city.

"Do I see a watchtower?" Carlos asks you [the DM].

Before you can reply, Ben, feeling a creative surge, supplies an answer of his own: "Look! Over there! That horrible tower, rising from the central plateau! Oh, my goodness, its tiles writhe! And tentacles dangle from the spire!"

You might instinctively want to slap down this seizure of your narrative prerogative. Then you remember that you encouraged players to collaborate in building the world. You affirm Ben's idea by building on it.

"Yep, those tentacles, all right. A strange bird that looks like a black-feathered albatross circles slowly near the spire. Suddenly, a tentacle zaps out, like the tongue of a frog, and grabs the bird, pulling it into the tower. You hear a chewing noise."

"You mean the tower is alive?" Deena exclaims. She knows your DMing style indluces vivid details to encourage the PCs to move closer to explore. "Thanks a lot, Ben!" she jokes.

---------end of sidebar 1------------

DMG 2, page 17: DM's Workshop: Forks in the Road

In this example of solicited input, the players are travelling along an ancient road through a dense forest.

[abbreviated. Players arrive at a fork in the road.]

This fork offers a decision point to the PCs, as well as a chance to tailor its branches to their interests. Ben and Deena dominated an earlier interaction scene, so you solicit input from Amy and Carlos.

"Amy, you've heard that something dangerous lies to the west. What is it?" [the DM asks]

Amy thinks for a moment. "Um, it's bird people. I hate bird people."

For a moment, you panic. You don't have stat blocks for any bird people. But you realize that [...you can winge it.] You affirm Amy's choice by adding a new detail.

"Oh yes," you reply. "They have a new leader, Radak, who has sworn vengeance on all mammals."

"No, you fucking twat. 'Mammals' is a fucking anachronism. I'll have none of that shit in MY game, DM. Expelliarmus!," Amy yells. [Ok, I made that line up. Everything else is true to the original.]

[Rest of the sidebar compressed. The DM solicits the other player's input, Carlos', as to what lies east. After that's established...]

Now that the players have established their options, they debate the merits of the two choices: Do they head towards the hostile bird people, or do they explore the haunted pagoda?

---------End of sidebar 2---------------

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362846It's a DM technique for setting the tone, or giving the PCs a chance to establish themselvs in character through an introduction.

Indeed, which is exactly what I said as well.

QuoteOr a buff or diplomacy check! With some roleplaying attached, which is exactly what is happening...

Absolutely, and that would change the nature of the example entirely. However, making any kind of check at all was not included in the example, so I'm left with drawing the conclusion that using the tools provided in the rules was not what this hypothetical DM did in the example situation.

QuoteI honestly don't care what you buy or don't. Any rules techniques suggested by Robin Laws are going to have improvisation and creativity specifically highlighted as technique, though.

I'm not sure where I indicated that you do or even should care what I do or do not buy. I merely mentioned it to indicate that it's possible that my knowledge of this example is incomplete (if Windjammer excluded a portion in his quote) and meant to give you the opportunity to point that out if it were true. Also, I'm not sure why it's relevant that suggestions from Robin Laws include improvisation and creativity. The improvisation and creativity are not why this example is a poor one. Honestly, it would be very difficult to even play these games without those tools. What I dislike about this example is that it describes a situation that is dealt with entirely based on improvisation without recourse to the rules of the game (which is another indispensable tool of our hobby), when there are rules included to deal with the specific situation described. Personally, I would be inclined to include bonuses based on a player's creativity to a character's rolls to bypass a challenge of this nature, but I would be loathe to just ignore the rules completely just because a player jumps out with this kind of improvisation.

hmmm but making up all that shit is where I derive the most fun as a referee. Well that and humiliating the player characters to the point of tears.