Player Narration and GM Secrets

[szilard]

This is spun off from a post Ron made in the (remarkably interesting) Actual Play thread A demoralising day which highlights a current dilemma I've been having:

How do you allow for the GM to maintain secrets in a game which permits player narration?

an example:

The PCs square off against a main villain in what is intended to be a climactic fight scene. The PCs have heard that this villain possesses some strange powers, but they haven't learned details. Now, the system supports the players narrating the scene, but the players don't know the capabilities of the NPC. How could you resolve this?

some options:

1) The players make up the powers.

2) The GM tells the players what the powers are.

3) The GM reserves some minor narration (or editing) rights, perhaps interjecting NPC capabilities as they become relevant.

Now, (3) might be - in some sense - the most satisfying, but it also seems like it would be the trickiest to implement in a way that didn't seem artificial.

Are there other options?

Stuart

[Kester Pelagius]

. . . Since I really haven't played in any storyteller systems.  But, hey, lack of knowledge have never been reason not to post!  Right?  ;)

How do you allow for the GM to maintain secrets in a game which permits player narration?

The PCs square off against a main villain in what is intended to be a climactic fight scene. The PCs have heard that this villain possesses some strange powers, but they haven't learned details. Now, the system supports the players narrating the scene, but the players don't know the capabilities of the NPC. How could you resolve this?

some options:

1) The players make up the powers.

2) The GM tells the players what the powers are.

3) The GM reserves some minor narration (or editing) rights, perhaps interjecting NPC capabilities as they become relevant.

Now, (3) might be - in some sense - the most satisfying, but it also seems like it would be the trickiest to implement in a way that didn't seem artificial.

Are there other options?

StuartHow do you allow for the GM to maintain secrets in a game which permits player narration?

Why can't you just have the players narrate their character's actions and then have the GM narrate the Villain's actions?

Worked in the good old days.

Say something like:

Sonny:  My Mighty Ninja Warrior-Assasin, Bunny, stealthily moves in the shadowy dark, glistening vorpal blade of decapitation ready to be unsheathed at the slightest provocation while... yadyadayada

(switch)

GM: "Death and destruction," sputters Amorous Deathvixen, "I shall rain blood and gore down upon all who oppose my plan.  Yes, yes, soon everyone shall be forced to wear Thongs of Uncomfortablness and eat brocoli pudding!"  (sound of GM cackling)

(switch)

Teresa:  (Looking like she wants to either burst into laughter or fish in her purse for an advil) "I move forward, hand ready to gesture a quick ward if need be, as I scan the room.  Dammit, Bunny's disappeared into shadows again, the fool.  Damn males, always too eagre to draw sword and spill precious bodily fluids..." and etcetera

What's wrong with delineating responses back and forth to allow everyone a say in the action?

Telling stories are fine but, from what it sounds like, you need to institute a mechanic that allows for everyone to have their turn. . . Turns.  Hmm.

As I said I've never played a storyteller system but that's how we played most games.  As GM I controlled the scene (yeah, sure I did!) by simply pointing to a player, letting them have their say up to a point I felt like the actions for a turn permited, them quickly pointed to another character and had them speak up, if they wanted to.  One thing I noticed is that everyone had their own style of responded.  Some like to narrate their actions, others semi-narrated (spoke in third person) while others just sort of said their character did X, Y, and then Z.

If narration is really that big a part of the game this may not work, especially if everyone wants a say.  But then again there isn't any reason why you can't adapt this to suit your needs, and thus allow everyone to have their say within reason.

Just remember, the GM is the GM.  Like all power it must be wielded.  Use it or lose it, and all the other cliches that elude me at the moment.  Otherwise you might as well just sit around a camp fire and tell ghost stories while making smores.  *shrug*

Apologies if this didn't help any.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[szilard]

Kester,

That's not exactly what I was talking about. I'm trying to focus upon player narration task or conflict resolution. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.


Stuart

[Jack Spencer Jr]

How do you allow for the GM to maintain secrets in a game which permits player narration?

This sounds counter to me, actually. If the players narrate, then the GM's role is mostly of director, in regards to scene framing, and facillitator for what the players come up with. This is not what I think of when it comes to GM secret. That term makes me think of the style of play I outlined in the I Listened To My Friend's Game Last Night thread in Actual Play.

[Jay Turner]

One of my games awards narration to whomever wins a check. The limits on that clearly state that while you're free to narrate whatever happens to the other character as a result of your action, you cannot narrate the other character's actions.

For example, you're fighting against an evil villain (played by the GM). You don't know what he can do. When you check, you win narration, so you narrate that you go over, grab the villain by the neck, and slam him a couple of times into the wall.

You may not say, "I slam him into the wall, and he starts screaming." If the villain is going to scream, that's for his player to decide.

In most cases, both parties will declare their actions before they challenge for narration. So the hero says, "I will run in and grab his neck," while the villain says, "I will fire bolts of liquid Deth at him," and if the hero wins, he can narrate dodging bolts of liquid Deth, or even getting hit by them. He cannot narrate the villain ceasing his bolts of liquid Deth, but he may narrate getting hit by them as he lifts the villain from the ground.

I'm still ironing that all out, but that's how I did it. It may put too many limits on the narration for some people's tastes.

[Valamir]

I think your 3 options are all perfectly valid possibilities.

Universalis relies completely on option 1.  This works well from the perspective of maintaining suspense.  So if you're primary goal of the secret is to maintain that feeling that there's something more going on than we know about and it could come out and change things at any moment...this works well.

Most games that cede some narration power to the players use option two, because most such games reserve the right to GM veto.  Adventure! uses this method for its Dramatic Editing rules.

Donjon uses option 3.  Whoever wins the roll gets to narrate 1 Fact for every success that is absolutely carved in granite.  The other party gets to narrate everything else.  So if the player wins and uses their facts to narrate certain things, it is easy for the GM to come in and incorporate his "secrets" into the situation.  If the GM wins he incorporates his "secrets" as part of his initial Facts.  There is the possibiltiy of the player's using their Facts in a way that thwarts the secret, but that is unique to the way Donjon divies up the power and not I think required of all such possible systems.

An easy way would be for the GM to have all of the "Secrets" in the game written up on little 3x5 cards.  When a player wins the right to narrate they are given an appropriate card which outlines items that are "Fact" and need to be incorporated.

[szilard]

For example, you're fighting against an evil villain (played by the GM). You don't know what he can do. When you check, you win narration, so you narrate that you go over, grab the villain by the neck, and slam him a couple of times into the wall.

You may not say, "I slam him into the wall, and he starts screaming." If the villain is going to scream, that's for his player to decide.

Hmmm...

Okay, but what if the villain has some strange magical effect that, say, makes him intangible? How would you handle it when the PC's narrated actions couldn't happen?

I mean, one possible answer is to say that the villain doesn't have that effect, but it could be - if not central to the on-going story, then important to it. Perhaps the villain is responsible for a number of seemingly impossible thefts. When the PCs confront him and discover his intangible state, past events will suddenly make sense to them. This sort of revelation should be possible. Maybe it isn't compatible with player narration, though.


Stuart

[lumpley]

Vincent's mini-rant #2: I don't think it's fair to call them "GM secrets."  The GM can't actually know secret things, since group assent is what makes things true in the game.  

Some play styles privilege the GM's plans to the point where if the GM planned it, the players have no social contract-sanctioned grounds to withhold their assent.  Calling the GM's plans "secrets" comes from that style of play and is dangerously misleading when applied to any other.  Dangerously misleading, I say!  Think of the children!

So can we call them "GM plans" instead?  That might point to solutions, or it might not, but at least it'll be clear what we're talking about.

How do you allow for the GM to maintain plans in a game which permits player narration?

If that's what you want to do, you find some compromise between the players' narration rights and the GM's planning rights, just as you and everybody's said.  Ron's Dragons and Jasmine is an example, where Ron plans, but brings his plans into the game really flexibly.

-Vincent

Edit: Stuart!  I meant Stuart!

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings szliard,

That's not exactly what I was talking about. I'm trying to focus upon player narration task or conflict resolution. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.


Stuart

Ah, apologies.

Though, at the risk of trying your patience further, if it's a resolution matter shouldn't the GM make a situational call to determine whether or not the narrated action could be attempted?

If not, but the player has attempted it, as plainly stated in their character narration, then shouldn't the GM have to counter with a suitable consequence for the improbable action?

edit: That's assuming that actions, once narrated by a player, would have to be fit into the given situation by the arbiter if need be.  As I say, no experience with storyteller systems.  So I'll stop typing now.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[szilard]

Vincent,

"Plans" might work, although "secrets" incorporates the possibility of both individual facts and patterns. "Plans" seems to lean more toward the patterns... but I'm not sure if this makes a big difference.

Yeah, I've read the Dragons and Jasmine thread. That was, I think, one of the things that got me thinking about this. Perhaps my concern might be better expressed as a concern about what happens when the GM's flexibility in planning gets overstretched to the point that - in order for the GM to continue having fun - the GM really needs to be inflexible on a point or two. Can such inflexibility be reconciled with giving players narrative rights?

Stuart

[lumpley]

Perhaps my concern might be better expressed as a concern about what happens when the GM's flexibility in planning gets overstretched to the point that - in order for the GM to continue having fun - the GM really needs to be inflexible on a point or two. Can such inflexibility be reconciled with giving players narrative rights?

Yep, that's exactly what I think.

Which doesn't help toward an actual solution, I know, but I think it's a much better starting point.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Stuart,

I really need to get a better understanding of what you mean by "narrate."

Let's say we're playing old-school RuneQuest, perhaps of the Avalon Hill vintage. My character's action (already announced = attack the troll) "goes" on Strike Rank 7. It's Strike Rank 7, so I roll, and the troll rolls defensively. The outcome is absolutely certain based on the dice: I hit or miss. Turns out I hit - where does it land? Roll that d20 and find out, let's say it's the troll's pun'kin head. How much damage? Roll my (umm...) d8 + 1 + d6 for my weapon and STR bonus, and say I get a whopping 13. 13 to the head! The troll only has 1 point of armor there, so takes 12, and 12 to the head is way over his (um) 8 hits there. My sword goes "a-thunk" slicing right into his brain.

Either I or the GM could narrate (provide verbally) the final sentence in that paragraph. It makes absolutely no difference which of us does it, right?

Therefore, you must be talking about something else besides raw narration, when you use that word. What is it?

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Can the GM have things that are unknown to the player that are set in stone that the player can change with his narration?

OK, obvioulsy not. Either they are set, or they are not. Somebody has to have the authority to say what's what, and (with the exception of the theoretical post-modern non-RPG where everyone has their own reality) that authority has to be final.

Now, are there ways to bend around this? Yes, lots. Are you interested in near hits, or are you insisting that what you want is a way to solve an insoluble problem. Because we can help you with the first, but not the second.

Mike

[szilard]

Ron,

I'm coming from this with an eye to how narration works in Destined, my game-in-development. I suppose that monologues of victory in the Pool are rather similar to what I'm going for here. Perhaps Donjon or InSpectres would be good to throw in as comparisons, though I think my concerns can't really surface in InSpectres, at least.

The way narration works in Destined is that players resolve situations via either Determination or Destiny, and it is typically their choice as to which to use. If they use the former, they narrate the outcome of the die roll. If the use the latter, the GM narrates the outcome. There's a bit more to it than that (particularly in terms of interpreting the die roll), but it isn't really relevant. What the die result measures (in a Determination roll, at least) is the degree of character satisfaction with the outcome of the situation. The player is supposed to narrate how that outcome is achieved.

Does that clear up what I'm concerned with?

Stuart

[szilard]

Now, are there ways to bend around this? Yes, lots. Are you interested in near hits, or are you insisting that what you want is a way to solve an insoluble problem. Because we can help you with the first, but not the second.

::nod::

I hear you.

I started this thread because the problem on its face appeared insoluble, and I recognize that there are some possible ways of getting the desired effect (such as the GM buying back some narration rights with metagame currency), but I'm by no means aware of all of them - or even, necessarily, the better ones. I suppose that what I'm looking for are some of the least costly/intrusive methods of skirting around the problem.


Stuart