I'd prefer that Luke's character develop in play rather than be pre-determined. Is it possible to turn Luke to the dark side should be determined in play.
If the Vader PC fails, then Yes, Luke is not turnable. Otoh, if Vader succeeds, then Luke's feelings aren't so carved in stone.
This is my general approach, too.
In my reply to [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] upthread, I emphasised the importance of player knowledge. If the player knows that Luke is likely unable to be lured by the prospect of power, but decides to proceed that way anyway (eg because that's all his/he PC has to offer), then that is different from the GM springing this on the player as (hitherto) hidden backstory.
It can also depend on how things resolved. For instance, if we conceive as the resolution as a skill challenge with a combat embedded in it, then maybe Vader's player has won the challenge, but not without some failures along the way. And so the GM narrates a "Yes, but" resolution: Luke falls rather than turns, but the player learns that Luke has another weakness that could be exploited, namely, his love for Leia. That's a pretty harsh "Yes, but . . ", but in the overall context of play perhaps it makes sense.
That's why I gave some actual play examples upthread, to try and make things concrete. With these hypotheticals it's hard to generalise when (necessarily) we don't have any actual play context to better inform what is going on and what the dynamics are between GM and player.
Contrived scenarios break immersion from the story I'm telling.
As a GM I'm not trying to tell a story. I'm trying to frame the players (via their PCs) into difficult situations. If I do my job properly, and the game's mechanics work properly, then some sort of story should emerge.
Even our XP rewards lean far heavier on travel, new experiences, research, social interactions, meeting new persona as opposed to primarily combat.
I don't really see what work "primarily combat" is doing here. Social interactions and meeting new people are important in my game too. And I guess would be important in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s game.
Another very important part of my game is the players (and thereby their PCs) learning the campaign backstory. But I generally prefer that the backstory come out in the context of resolving a situation - say, in the context of interacting with an NPC - then via a "download" triggered by (say) the PCs going to a library.
Here's an example of the last purely exploratory scenario I ran. Here are
two links to some examples of the sorts of social encounters I enjoy, which are my typical way of bringing out and/or establishing backstory.
what if your PCs went mountain climbing and forgot to purchase the rope, grapping hook, map...etc Is equipment out the window too or just the research/guide thing?
I'd generally assume that they did get that stuff, or that their success in getting that stuff is rolled into the climb check.
In a system that lets resource acquisition itself be part of the resolution process (eg a "buy gear" check to support the subsequent climbing check) I'd be happy to use that. But D&D doesn't really have that sort of system.
The other part of this, though, is that Conan climbs plenty of walls, mountains, cliffs etc without stocking up on gear first. And in one of the REH stories (Rogues in the House?) he breaks in via sewers without having checked the library archives first. I find that emphasising preparation, which in many respects is an aspect of PC-building (eg adding items onto equipment lists), can detract from actual resolution, which is where I prefer play to be focused.
Your PCs miss your intial clues to get required knowledge (i.e. they ignore the town's library archives), you continue to adapt the story so that the PCs acquire the information anyways (they bump into an old retired architect's assistant at a tavern), or (they find a kid in the sewers that guides them) or (they hear the gong of a church bell, knowing where they are in the sewers). So something along those lines?
Continually pushing the storyline forward, minimising setbacks and overlooking the Players/Characters "oversights"
This paragraph refers to a storyline being pushed forward. That way of talking doesn't really resonate with me, because it suggest a pre-determined end point (what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] referred to as "Roads to Rome").
If the players in my game took their PCs into the sewers to try to sneak into another part of the city, then that's what we're resolving. In the context of 4e, Dungeoneering and Streetwise checks would be the order of the day (and would help resolve the question of whether or not the PCs got any useful information in advance). If checks succeed, the narration suggested by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (a PC sticks his/her head up through a grate) works fine. If checks fail and things seem to be grinding to a halt, some sort of complication is in order - maybe the PCs bump into their rivals in the sewer, heading the other way! Or if that would be too distracting, the same grate technique can work but this time the PC is seen as s/he is ducking back down - so now the PCs are on a tighter clock.
This link describes how I handled some of the last big Underdark crawl in my campaign.
I think you could easier adapt to my group (research/guide/equipment) as they would just give you more to work with as a storyteller, than if I would to your PC group (muddling things through).
I think you'd find my group gives plenty for a GM to work with.
That there's potentially some risk involved should be a reasonable expectation; including the very basic risk of getting lost.
