Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362809The actual example in the DMG2 gives no such benefit, though.

Benefits aside, why are the players in Windjammer's examples trying to wreck the game? Or trying to avoid that particular challenge?

If the intent of the examples was to demonstrate that given some narrative input, the players could derail the game, well, yes, of course they can. But as I'm sure everyone here is already aware, players don't need narrative control to derail or destroy a game.

Of course, these are reductio ad absurdum. Let players add input to the game - which is, by the way, separating from allowing them to re-write elements of the game as is the case with the examples - and they'll add input about their characters and little else.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;362857There 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



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---------------

Now these examples are different, because in both it's stated that the DM had spoken of this kind of improv beforehand and had encouraged it. That's a whole different ball of wax. If that's the way they like to roll then rock on. I still stand by my opinion that the original example is a poor one.

Quote from: Sigmund;362681I could turn the question around and ask why such thorough ownership of the fictional setting is so distasteful to you.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say "distasteful."

I don't find it necessary. That is, gaming works - and works well - without a GM who possess total authority over all aspects of the game.

I believe that if a player would find the game more enjoyable and become more attached to it if he or she could add details, then, by all means, add details.

I enjoy the challenge of GMing in an environment of collaboration.

I believe collaboration makes for a stronger, more interesting game, setting, storyline, et al.

Seanchai

Quote from: two_fishes;362675Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?

If they want to introduce a major new organization, that is something that needs to be worked out ahead of time because I need time to discuss and think about any wide implications it has on the campaign world I constructed.  If they want to throw in minor suggestions, that's different.

Being in control of the campaign world and setting the stage is pretty much the main fun part of being DM.

Really, I don't see how some of you people don't get it.  I mean, you wouldn't want a DM forcing emotions or actions on players in the middle of the game, right?

PC 1: I attack!
DM: Oh, sorry Mike, but the head cultist looks kind of like the babysitter Rathgar had in his youth who inappropriately touched him.  Rathgar loses his action this round while he cowers in the corner and wets himself.
PC 1: WTF?

QuoteYou might instinctively want to slap down this seizure of your narrative prerogative.

And people doubted me when I insisted the Forge had taken over our game.

Holy fuck.

Quote from: Seanchai;362875Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say "distasteful."

I don't find it necessary. That is, gaming works - and works well - without a GM who possess total authority over all aspects of the game.

I believe that if a player would find the game more enjoyable and become more attached to it if he or she could add details, then, by all means, add details.

I enjoy the challenge of GMing in an environment of collaboration.

I believe collaboration makes for a stronger, more interesting game, setting, storyline, et al.

Seanchai

Well the flipside is that I have no problem with conceding almost all authority over the setting to the GM, with the exception of some details over my character, as I most enjoy exploring the imagined world and discovering the details provided by a talented GM. I see no way of avoiding collaboration of some kind in playing RPGs, the question is a matter of degrees. As we all know, there's room for the whole spectrum to enjoy games, but this particular game is in a different part of the spectrum than games that are purposely designed to accommodate this sort of improv, so IMO some discussion before the game starts would be required to define when and how such improv would be appropriate for the particular group in question as what's described in the original example actually disregards rules included in the game to deal with the kind of situation provided. If improv is going to be allowed to trump rules, then what would be the downside of using improvised narrative to dictate the outcome of every challenge, thereby transforming the game into collaborative story-telling rather than a game of DnD?

Quote from: Sigmund;362681I could turn the question around and ask why such thorough ownership of the fictional setting is so distasteful to you.

The short answer is that I like being able to contribute to the fiction this way and I find games where players are allowed this are more fun.

The longer answer is that I think this is an interesting question and a question worth asking. When a bunch of players get together to play and rpg, they're all friends and equals. None of them is more special than any other. One player is selected (or self-selects) to be the GM and given a special authority over the fiction because that serves play, and makes a better game. The other kinds of players get a different level of authority over the fiction for the same reason. I think it's worth it to experiment with the limits of player authority, to try new things and see what works and what doesn't. Any limits to any players' control over the fiction should be  accompanied by good reasons for those limits--the limits should be for the purpose of making a better, more enjoyable game. So when CRKRueger says he prefers those limits because it improves his immersion, that's something I can accept. But simply saying, "No, you can't do that because I'm the GM and I say so," is a very unsatisfying answer for me. Going on to punish my character (and by extension punishing me as a player) by associating the character with sheep-fuckers not just unsatisfying, but downright insulting.

QuoteLets leave aside the OOC explanation, which is certainly valid in at least some circumstances wherein said DM might have an in-game reason for not wanting to allow such a group and becoming annoyed that the player is introducing such details without consulting the DM first, although I might go about saying it differently. After all, my reading of raeth's post is that the DM didn't initially object to the detail being introduced, or the existence of the group the player was claiming membership in on behalf of his character. What seemed to jump the shark was making the group so locally prominent and prestigious, possibly circumventing a challenge that the DM had planned for this encounter, or even allowing room for further "benefits" being called upon later on. What makes it ok for the player to introduce such a detail, unbidden, into the campaign world, but not ok for the DM to expand upon that fictional detail. Perhaps the group being out of favor actually plays into the DMs goals for the long-term game.

A GM willing to negotiating with the player about added elements to the fiction is totally cool. Being told that it's important that the group is currently out of favour would be interesting and fun. If I introduced something like that and you said, "Okay they don't exist, make a bluff check." I could go with that, too, and maybe initiate a conversation about it after the game. That sort of contribution is not always welcome, and bringing it in unbidden could be considered rude. But being told okay but they're actually sheep-fuckers is an insult, a complete perversion of player intent. For that I might stop the game and say, Hey, what the fuck?

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.

Why take it for granted? Why not question and discuss these things? Why not question our assumptions? Isn't that what forums are for?

Quote from: David R;362703I'm surprised at the way how you phrased your question. "Ownership of the fictional setting" seems needlessly adversarial. It hardly describes the dynamic in most groups.

I actually am making an effort not to be antagonistic, and use language that's both neutral and clear. Isn't ownership of the fiction what's going on? Every player in an rpg tries to influence the fiction. The ways they are allowed to do that are limited by the rules and by the custom of each group.

Quote from: Seanchai;362866Of course, these are reductio ad absurdum. Let players add input to the game - which is, by the way, separating from allowing them to re-write elements of the game as is the case with the examples - and they'll add input about their characters and little else.

Seanchai

Great Cthulhu arise! The Stars are Right!!!

Ahem, i agree with Seanchai.

Quote from: Windjammer;362793DM: "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. "

I don't buy it. Yeah there are players who will be abusive if they're given more authority over the fiction. They're assholes. Don't game with them. There are GMs who get annoyed with players and say, Okay rocks fall you die. They're also assholes. Don't game with them.

Quote from: Aos;362856I'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.

I pretty much agree with this, although I would add it depends on the game setting. Some of my campaign worlds have a lot of blank space to fill in and others are well defined.

A couple of other thoughts;

As a DM the world is sort of  "my character". There has to be a dividing line somewhere. Should a DM be allowed to decide a PC's actions? I think most players would find that intrusive. I prefer a seperation of church and state. Make the character you want to play, then explore my world.

As far as players making up details on the fly, I like the way Shatterzone does it, with cards expended as a resource to affect the setting or NPC's, etc. You could use a point system just as easy. But again it depends on the setting, I wouldn't want to do this in most games.

Quote from: two_fishes;362891I actually am making an effort not to be antagonistic, and use language that's both neutral and clear. Isn't ownership of the fiction what's going on? Every player in an rpg tries to influence the fiction.

No, they don't.  You keep making assumptions like this, and all they prove is that you don't have the slightest clue what goes on in most games.

IME you're lucky if the characters at the table even have a backstory, or even a proper name, let alone all this bullshit about springing setting details on the players in the middle of the goddamn game.

Yeah, I said players.  In all this anti-GM rhetoric where's the consideration for the other players, hmm?  After all, if gaming's supposed to be "shared fiction", doesn't that imply these whole cloth sudden inventions affect the other players every bit as much as the GM?

Quote from: jgants;362885Being in control of the campaign world and setting the stage is pretty much the main fun part of being DM.

Really, I don't see how some of you people don't get it.  I mean, you wouldn't want a DM forcing emotions or actions on players in the middle of the game, right?

PC 1: I attack!
DM: Oh, sorry Mike, but the head cultist looks kind of like the babysitter Rathgar had in his youth who inappropriately touched him.  Rathgar loses his action this round while he cowers in the corner and wets himself.
PC 1: WTF?

I need to learn to type faster, hehe. you beat me to it.

I had a DM who would tell me things like "your character feels like you can trust so-and-so". And I would say "you are a bad mind reader, because that's not how he feels at all..."

He got better though.

Quote from: J Arcane;362897No, they don't.  You keep making assumptions like this, and all they prove is that you don't have the slightest clue what goes on in most games.

Everything said about a fiction is an attempt to influence the fiction. If I say, "My guy runs up to the orc and whacks the shit out of him with my big fucken mace!" I am attempting to influencing the fiction. That is all that means. Don't read too much into it.