Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Imaro]

I think we've come to the point where you're arguing past Janx or are caught in some kind of argument whirlpool from which you cannot escape. I don't think there's anything Janx has been saying that really contradicts any of the options here about other skill checks being relevant to a chase scene (should the PCs elect to participate in one).

Then you've missed my point in presenting the examples... setting one thing in stone is not railroading (as some have claimed in this thread) and the PC's have plenty of options. So no, I'm not "caught in some kind of argument whirlpool from which you cannot escape." But nice way of phrasing that. I think it's more apt to say that I and Janx don't see eye to eye on the objective superiority of one style vs. the other. Make no mistake I use both, but I don't think any one is better than the other... just different.

But to tie into Janx's advice earlier, if you're going to have a chase scene, why decide, right off the bat, that the NPC being chased is taking the best route from A to B and that the PCs couldn't use their knowledge skills to improve on it? Holding that option open gives the PCs one more tool in their kit to intercept their quarry, should they be creative enough to think of it. There may be circumstances in which I might say that no shortcut or other alternative route is available, but I'd be inclined to believe in Janx's advice and I'd make those a small minority.

Because complications create more drama, tension, etc... when any and everything is possible and available, there is less tension and the story being created is less dramatic. Not being able to create a shortcut everytime you get into a chase in the city...is a good thing IMO.

I also think that when there is no impetus to think beyond the easiest and most convenient solution... most peole won't (You know, the whole sand in the eyes routine or the every attack is "I hit him" problem). How boring does "I remember a shortcut" become after the umpteenth time it's used to justify a skill check with knowledge local (more than likely by the same player)? When you add restrictions and paradigms players often have to think differently, more creatively and be more ingenuous in their approach as opposed to falling back on the standbys when anything is possible. I mean setbacks are parcel for the type of stories that D&D tries to model and yet people are arguing against the DM setting up conflict and obstacles in the PC's way (even though he has in no way eliminated their ability to make choices and act). Honestly I'm wondering why allowing the player to have a chance of success at anything they suggest is a more interesting proposition than having the player try to figure out something in a situation with setbacks and limiters?

 

[Imaro]

Yes. I was indeed referring to post immediate chase. If navigation and speed don't offer winning options then attempting to be a few steps ahead in the longer run might be the better play depending on circumstances.

But...but, how could that ever be more fun/interesting/exciting than one of the players declaring that he knows a shortcut and catching the villain earlier? I mean they would actually have to come up with a plan to find out this information, roleplay... as well as figure out how they would capture/kill the villain wherever he is at. It would be much more fun and interesting for everyone at the game if the PC who knows the city discovers a shortcut and they catch him then and there... This other stuff is just railroading them.

 

[Mort]

But...but, how could that ever be more fun/interesting/exciting than one of the players declaring that he knows a shortcut and catching the villain earlier? I mean they would actually have to come up with a plan to find out this information, roleplay... as well as figure out how they would capture/kill the villain wherever he is at. It would be much more fun and interesting for everyone at the game if the PC who knows the city discovers a shortcut and they catch him then and there... This other stuff is just railroading them.

I don't know - in some games it might be fun (or at least funny) to have a PC whos shtick is "don't worry, I know a shortcut" and invariably - he does.

I think one thing going on here is that certain words are being used interchangeably which in fact are not (not in the quoted post btw, I'm talking over the past several pages). Direct does not equal fastest does not equal best - as it were. As in the villain might know the most direct route but the player might know the fastest route (in a bustling city it is actually quite likely the two are not one and the same) which means they have a chance of catching him.

One more thing - Railroading is the DM taking meaningful choice away from the players. Anytime it's used in some other way it gets beaten further into uselessness and more into some general "bad" term that people throw around without regard to meaning.

 

[Mallus]

Because complications create more drama, tension, etc... when any and everything is possible and available, there is less tension and the story being created is less dramatic. Not being able to create a shortcut everytime you get into a chase in the city...is a good thing IMO.

Err... wasn't the original example of a PC rolling a skill check to determine if they knew a shortcut?

I also think that when there is no impetus to think beyond the easiest and most convenient solution... most peole won't...

You should game with some of the people I game with. We usually opt for the most baroque solution possible.

 

[Imaro]

Err... wasn't the original example of a PC rolling a skill check to determine if they knew a shortcut?

Not sure what this has to do with what you quoted? How does having to roll change my point? It may not be successful all the time but in general I doubt a PC is going to try something he's not good in so it will succeed much more than it will fail and thus bedome a defacto answer.

You should game with some of the people I game with. We usually opt for the most baroque solution possible.

That's cool for your group but I am talking in genral terms here.

 

[Imaro]

I don't know - in some games it might be fun (or at least funny) to have a PC whos shtick is "don't worry, I know a shortcut" and invariably - he does.

The funny thing is that with the right campaign, with the right players you are absolutely right... it would be great.

My problem has been with the idea that a DM is wrong (objectively) for setting things in stone and/or choosing not to give narrative control to players. IMO, it's not a right or wrong... should or shouldn't thing. It's an assess the players you have and the type of campaign you all enjoy as well as the type of game the DM wants to run and if it all lines up with being a better game because everything is mutable and the players have narrative control over the setting then great...go for it. However there is the very real posibility that for many types of campaigns, players and styles... this would create a worse game as well, which for some reason cannot be acknowledged by some. In other words this playstyle isn't inherently better in an objective way than any other... it's just preference.

 

[Mallus]

I'm advising against DM certainty. Do not absolutely declare the NPC is taking the best route.

To sum up, being abstract allows for more variance in outcomes. It's also probably less paperwork.

Excellent advice. I heartily approve (probably because this is the way in DM!).

This brings to light one of the (initially) counter-intuitive ways a DM can lend the semblance of reality to the game world: by not claiming exhaustive knowledge over it. I treat my campaign settings as if they're simply too big for me to know every nook and cranny of. Instead, I act as if their places I've lived for awhile; I'm more than a tourist but something less than a authoritative guide. I can give basic directions to certain places, tell you what I think is interesting and what places to avoid. But I'm more than able to surprised, proven wrong, and shown sites I didn't know existed.

In the case of the chase and a map, my first thought was: how good was the map? Did it account for every possible route, both street-level and above/below? What about traffic/congestion? Random possible random encounters? To my way of thinking, claiming the map is definitive opens the DM to criticism over every detail they neglected -- and make no mistake, every DM misses important details.

I make my settings seem real(er?) by acting as if they were too big for me to catalog with complete accuracy in exhaustive detal, and leaving them open to details added by players, random rolls, and various ab-libbing at the table.

(and it's hardly the most ass-backward thing I've found that actually works well at the table)

 

[Nagol]

Err... wasn't the original example of a PC rolling a skill check to determine if they knew a shortcut?


<snip>

No, the OP was about a player declaring that his character was so familiar with the city that he should know of a shortcut.

The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

 

[Mallus]

How does having to roll change my point?

Ponder this: is there a difference between automatically hitting and rolling to hit?

It may not be successful all the time...

Which is a key point. Sometimes the result will be the PC's cutting off the escaping villain, other times they'll get away and the PC's will have to adapt their plans accordingly.

... but in general I doubt a PC is going to try something he's not good in...

This is an assumption. A completely unwaranted one, at that. Ever see a pre-4e mage roll to hit with a weapon?

... so it will succeed much more than it will fail and thus bedome a defacto answer.

I have no idea what you're getting at.

So we should avoid rolling in situations where the players are likely to succeed, because that removes possible outcomes from the game, and instead, decide the outcome by fiat, which somehow increases the number of possible outcomes, excepting, of course, the outcome you decided not to roll for? I is puzzled.

I say just roll for it: sometimes the bad guy get's away, sometimes they don't. And I don't see the problem w/a PC whose shtick is knowing a city like the back of their hand...

 

[Mallus]

No, the OP was about a player declaring that his character was so familiar with the city that he should know of a shortcut.

The player did say "chances are" (not that it really matters). I'd still reply "hey, chances are you might - roll".