Quote from: James J SkachI see "Narrative Control" only in the broadest terms.  I'm using it only with respect to who, overall, has final say about what facts are introduced into the narrative.

OK, that makes sense. But now I have to ask, what do you mean by 'facts'? Stupid question, I know, but all of these are facts which could be introduced in the narrative, as I see it. They might be introduced before a die roll, or after, by the GM or by a player, that doesn't matter at the moment. But all these are facts which can be introduced into the game, yes?:

* A PC is called "Cebo"
* A PC's hair is brown.
* A PC says, "Run, you fools!"
* A PC climbs a tree.
* A PC's sword is rusty.
* A PC shoots his bow at somebody.
* A PC kisses somebody.
* A PC is gay.
* A PC is hit by somebody, and is wounded.
* A PC is knocked unconscious.
* A PC is scared & tries to run away.
* A PC is killed.
* It's raining.
* The street is muddy.
* The tavern is called "The Rusty Nail"
* There is a bail of hay in the barn.
* There is a tree nearby.
* This room contains an ancient artifact.
* This room contains a dragon.
* There is a faceless 'extra' NPC here. ("Townsfolk mill around the square")
* There is a 'named' NPC here. ("I smile at the Elder's wife")
* There is a PC here. ("Cebo the Barbarian enters.")
* A PC's arrow hits an NPC, wounding him.
* A faceless 'extra' NPC is now called "Kithan"
* An NPC says, "Run, you fools!"
* An NPC's cloak is muddy.
* An NPC's sword is rusty.
* An NPC is angry/scared/upset with somebody.
* An NPC becomes friendlier towards somebody.
* An NPC loses a fight.
* An NPC is killed.
* An NPC falls in love with somebody.
* An NPC has a change of heart.
* An NPC is, in fact, a spy for the somebody else.
(and so on)

Do all of those matter with regards to "Narrative Control"? Do some matter more than others? If so, which matter more, and why?

Assuming an non-Conflict Resolution, non-RSNC control game, which ones of these would the PC have 'final say' over, assuming that any & all of the dice rolls which might be required to gain that final say were successfully made. If the PC has gained the final say over a fact, can the GM overrule that fact at will? Can the GM overrule certain facts with a die roll? Which ones? Which facts (if any) are completely, always, 100% untouchable by the GM, under any circumstances?

EDIT: Crossposted with the last few posts.

Quote from: James J SkachIt is frustrating, isn't it?  Cause when you describe how you play, I think, man...he'd be fun to have as a D&D GM. And then you go and piss me off.

 

QuoteAnd you are right to point out that to shift the control away from the GM is non-traditional. But allowing players to affect the narrative is not. Does that difference make sense?

Okay, one Big & Tasty meal later...sure, it makes sense. In fact it relates to an issue I keep raising in objection to some of the ways that "traditional" games are characterised by "Forge" fans: just because a GM can largely control the narrative (in the sense of having the last say over much of what happens), that doesn't mean the players have no influence. Might as well say that lawyers have no influence in court, or that athletes have no influence in competition, just because judges/referees have final say. It really depends on how the GM views his or her role and responsibility.

Quote from: warrenBut all these are facts which can be introduced into the game, yes?:

* A PC is called "Cebo"[...]
* It's raining.[...]
* A PC's arrow hits an NPC, wounding him. [...]
(and so on)

Do all of those matter with regards to "Narrative Control"? Do some matter more than others? If so, which matter more, and why?

I'm not sure about Jim but I think it's easiest and clearest to say these all matter in terms of Narrative Control even though they may or may not matter very much in terms of the narrative. "Mattering in terms of the narrative" is subjective.

QuoteAssuming an non-Conflict Resolution, non-RSNC control game, which ones of these would the [player] have 'final say' over, assuming that any & all of the dice rolls which might be required to gain that final say were successfully made.

Depends on whether you're working from a baseline assumption about Narrative Control. In the traditional division of control that I think Balbinus, Jim, and I have talked about, you don't need "required shared narrative control" to be able to speak authoritatively about your character's state of mind or attempts to do things. You do need it to have final say about the result of an attempt (even if you successfully roll dice) or about some game-world object or event.

In the more general concept of Narrative Control I suggested above, non-RSNC would imply that players wouldn't even have final say over what their characters thought or tried to do, regardless of how they rolled dice.

QuoteIf the PC has gained the final say over a fact, can the GM overrule that fact at will? Can the GM overrule certain facts with a die roll?

Not by my understanding of "final say".

QuoteWhich facts (if any) are completely, always, 100% untouchable by the GM, under any circumstances?

I think I answered this above but if you're working from my traditional model, which I think is a very common baseline, then the GM can't narrate what your character thinks in terms of conscious reason, or what your character attempts to do. The reason I say "conscious reason" is that a GM often can say things like "you get a creepy feeling", or "he seems to be iying". In those cases the GM is abstracting a complex set of sensory inputs by describing them in terms of their cognitive impact--rather similar to how a GM can say you see a red car without describing the photons hitting your retina and the nerve impulses travelling to your brain.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm not sure about Jim but I think it's easiest and clearest to say these all matter in terms of Narrative Control even though they may or may not matter very much in terms of the narrative. "Mattering in terms of the narrative" is subjective.

Agreed on the subjective thing (which is why the name is throwing me a bit, I think). But this is where I get confused So to start with, any fact introduced into the game, including stuff like the name of my PC, or if he is awake or not, and so on, are things which fall under Narrative Control. Right?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn the traditional division of control that I think Balbinus, Jim, and I have talked about, you don't need "required shared narrative control" to be able to speak authoritatively about your character's state of mind or attempts to do things. You do need it to have final say about the result of an attempt (even if you successfully roll dice) or about some game-world object or event.

This kind of implies that "the internal state of my PC, and any actions that he initiates (but not the outcome or effect of those actions)" either don't fall under the remit of Narrative Control, or all games require at least some part of RSNC, to at least a certain extent.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn the more general concept of Narrative Control I suggested above, non-RSNC would imply that players wouldn't even have final say over what their characters thought or tried to do, regardless of how they rolled dice.

Or this approach, where every fact that is entered into the gameworld is part of Narrative Control, and in a VSNC game, the GM can overrule any and all facts that go into it.

Which one of those is it?
1) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are not part of Narrative Control, so it just doesn't matter if a game is RSNC or VSNC; players can always speak authoritatively about it.
2) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are a part of Narrative Control, but all games grant RSNC to the players over them.
3) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are a part of Narrative Control, and in pure VSNC games, the GM could overrule any fact about them, should he wish to do so.

Or have I missed something?

Quote from: warrenWhich one of those is it?
1) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are not part of Narrative Control, so it just doesn't matter if a game is RSNC or VSNC; players can always speak authoritatively about it.
2) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are a part of Narrative Control, but all games grant RSNC to the players over them.
3) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are a part of Narrative Control, and in pure VSNC games, the GM could overrule any fact about them, should he wish to do so.

Or have I missed something?

2.

-clash

First, you (Warren) seem to be using Narrative Control in an odd way. I would not say that "X is part of Narrative Control". I would say that "the player has (or doesn't have) narrative control over X".

Second, I can't answer "which one it is". I've given two definitions. One is based on how we were talking about it over in the other thread. It allows one to say "the GM in a traditional game has narrative control", meaning the GM has final say on everything outside the characters' skins. The other definition, which I proposed to generalize the idea, avoid making assumptions, and moot questions of where "character" leaves off and where "narrative" begins, is that narrative control is final say over any and all facts that get inserted into the "game world".

So it might be best if you picked one definition and then rephrased your questions.

I don't know how much I can improve on what Elliot is saying - but if you will permit me the attempt (I'm claiming it even if you don't, as I claim coining the neat shiny new term )...

In Voluntary Shared Narrative Control, it is possible for the player to introduce facts into the narrative. Whether or not the fact makes it is subject to a number of factors. One of those is, in cases where a specific rule does not cover the fact-introduction, is the GM fiat. There are several areas, even in these cases, where the GM cannot use that fiat. To point to the terms that Elliot has used, things like how the character feels, or what the character attempts to initiate. But outside of those boundaries, the GM has leeway.
 
In Required Shared Narrative Control, it is possible for the player to introduce facts into the narrative. There is no reaction available to the GM, other than altering the narrative to accommodate the introduced fact.

Or you could look at it this way:

All systems (that I know of) limit the ability of the GM to completely control narrative. If not, we'd really just be sitting around listening to the GM tell a story and acting out parts according to his narrative.

In Required Shared Narrative Control, this is a complete limit. The GM has no recourse other than the resolution mechanism. In Voluntary Shared Narrative Control, this is only a part of the system is limited. It's a bright line difference.

In traditional games, much of the narrative is still under the auspices of the resolution mechanics; much is under the auspices of the character. What does not fall under one of those two is under the GM control. Even in that case, the GM can still relinquish control, but it's his decision – hence the "voluntary." In non-traditional games, the GM has no choice but to relinquish control.

It should be noted that these were terms I just made up to try and understand the terms "Task Resolution" and "Conflict Resolution." I don't know how important they are outside of that endeavor.

Quote from: warrenWhich one of those is it?
1) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are not part of Narrative Control, so it just doesn't matter if a game is RSNC or VSNC; players can always speak authoritatively about it.
2) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are a part of Narrative Control, but all games grant RSNC to the players over them.
3) PC 'internals' and 'attempts' are a part of Narrative Control, and in pure VSNC games, the GM could overrule any fact about them, should he wish to do so.

In a sense, one and two are effectively the same. If the player can always speak authoritatively about 'internals' and 'attempts,' in all games, then what difference does it make if it's part of some thing I termed Narrative Control.  The real question is what lies outside of that.

I don't know of a game, personally, where #3 is allowed. But my experience is notably limited outside of more traditional systems.

Quote from: Cornell RichardsonWe get into the bottom of the crypt, and the GM starts to describe the room we're in. Once he paused, I started adding details, too, like a large acid pit in the middle of the room and shredded purple curtains on the wall and a large glowing battleaxe stuck in a giant dragon skull. The GM stopped the game and said, "What the hell are you doing, dude?"

I rolled my eyes at the poor schlub. "It's called shared narrative control, and it helps build better stories!"

"Well stop it," is all he said.

I think Cornell reads these very threads!  

Quote from: James J SkachI think Cornell reads these very threads!  

What's wonderful is the posters who're not realising he's joking.

And Matt with the pamphlets, comedy gold.