Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[JamesonCourage]

It seems like the discussion keeps getting herded back to "if you rule out a shortcut, the bad guy gets away." Even Mallus seems to take this view to some degree:

I say just roll for it: sometimes the bad guy get's away, sometimes they don't.

If the PC fails his shortcut check, the bad guy gets away.

What I don't think most of the people who are against the PCs engaging in narrative control are advocating is the bad guy getting away. They're saying, "the bad guy might get away, and he might not. What's that? Um, no, there's no shortcut. What do you do?" It's not a "shortcut or lose" situation inherently. I mean, I could see that being the case some of the time (if he has a mount on empty streets while the PCs are on foot), but I don't think that's been added to this scenario. Why not do something else to stop him? Disrupt him, catch him, shoot him, call for help from guards, ask people to get in the way because he stole your purse, etc? There's a lot of alternatives here other than taking a shortcut. Yeah, he might get away, but a shortcut is only one way to prevent it. As always, play what you like

 

[Imaro]

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

I thnk we both know the answer to this...

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 again, what has this added to the gameplay or story? Is there a reason that this is a better solution in this particular case than actually having an NPC who knows the most direct route and seeing how the PC's handle the complication? See that's the piece I am missing... why is granting the players narrative control to create a shortcut to stop the villain in this situation objectively more enjoyable/better/etc. than having the NPC take the most direct route and having the PC's deal with that situation?

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

Wait so you have been granted narrative control through the use of skills...and you're saying the assumption shouldn't be that you will try to use one of your higher rated skills as opposed to a lower one when exerting it?? Really?

I have no idea what you're getting at.

If I'm a character who is intimately familiar with the city we are in then I am going to assume that he has the Knowledge(local) skill or something similar... otherwise he doesn't have intimate knowledge of the area per the rules. Thus I will succeed more than I will fail in any roll involving that skill (going by average DC's). That said it then becomes easier and more reliable for me to fall back on my "knowledge of shortcuts" in any chase scenario than to think of anything else and thus it will most likely become my fallback in that situation. That's what I am saying.

I think it's almost improbable that in this situation a player will purposefully choose to use a bad skill.

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.

No we should have the freedom to set up conflicts, paradigms and obstacles that challenge the PC's to find other ways to approach and solve problems... How is this any different than DM fiat that adds a trap, terrain or whatever to a fight in a room in order to make the encounter more challenging and/or force the PC's to use different tactics in order to overcome it?

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...

And if the situation always has the same setup, guess what... you're probably going to end up rolling the same things every time.

 

[Hussar]

That's definitely an interesting, though IMO also limited, stance to have on the subject. I'm curious do you ever do sandbox play? I ask this because it is a whole playstyle where much, if not all of the campaign world is assumed to be created beforehand for the players to explore...How do the sentiments above factor into a game that is centered around exploration? Do your feelings change in such a game as to what is or isn't established... or is it still only in play?
/snip.

Yes, I ran the World's Largest Dungeon which is pretty much as sandboxy as you can get. The entire world is mapped out in 5 foot squares.

Guess what. I changed stuff all the freaking time.

 

[Janx]

It seems like the discussion keeps getting herded back to "if you rule out a shortcut, the bad guy gets away." Even Mallus seems to take this view to some degree:

If the PC fails his shortcut check, the bad guy gets away.

What I don't think most of the people who are against the PCs engaging in narrative control are advocating is the bad guy getting away. They're saying, "the bad guy might get away, and he might not. What's that? Um, no, there's no shortcut. What do you do?" It's not a "shortcut or lose" situation inherently. I mean, I could see that being the case some of the time (if he has a mount on empty streets while the PCs are on foot), but I don't think that's been added to this scenario. Why not do something else to stop him? Disrupt him, catch him, shoot him, call for help from guards, ask people to get in the way because he stole your purse, etc? There's a lot of alternatives here other than taking a shortcut. Yeah, he might get away, but a shortcut is only one way to prevent it. As always, play what you like

Hey, I don't disagree. The shortcut check is one of many options I'm going to quickly consider when I hit the street in hot pursuit of the NPC.

I may even expect that if I can't see the NPC, but know he's heading to point B, that a skill check is in order just to get me directions to the Point B (with higher rolls = a better route). Or the GM shows me the city map and says "which way do you take?"

Once the route factor is determined, then I'm hoping I can run faster to ensure I get there first. So the shortcut being granted, isn't the end of anything.

Ironically, Imaro's comment to JC here, seems contradictory. I've been advocating using mechanics to simulate the decision process. Declaring absolutes like "the NPC takes the best path" is narrating. So I would say I am advocating a simulationist approach.

As to Imaro's concern to creating challenge or complication to the game or story, that's what failure is. Failing to win the skill check is the complication. No different than failing to hit the bad guy. The challenge is by making the bad guy sufficiently skilled to justify him having the chance to beat me.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, I ran the World's Largest Dungeon which is pretty much as sandboxy as you can get. The entire world is mapped out in 5 foot squares.

Guess what. I changed stuff all the freaking time.

Oh, I don't doubt you did change things, seeing as how it was a published sandbox as opposed to one you created yourself. I would assume that you tweaked it to suit you and your group more. I guess I'm most curious as to the answer to the following two questions...ok, it's 3 the first could be two questions depending on the answer to the first...

1. Do you believe the point of sandbox play is exploration of the world... and if you don't what do you think it is

2. Did you let your players change things in the narrative or was that mostly your domain as DM when you ran this campaign?

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

This is an important point. Who is deciding that there WILL be a chase seen and at what point was this decided?

On one hand if the PCs are being ushered through scenes as if they were participants in a three ring circus then allowing them narrative altering means to progress makes perfect sense. It is after all, a chase scene and thus the ringmaster sayeth that thou shalt give chase and the only possible outcome is to run down the fleeing villain or fail and let him get away.

On the other hand if the players during the course of play, see a fleeing villain that appears to be taking the most favorable route away from them and has a head start its perhaps time to start thinking of solutions that either move them faster than the bad guy or maybe try and divine where he might be headed. This might not be a chase right now at all. This could be a quick note sent by pigeon to the guards at the gate to delay this scoundrel while the PCs march toward him at a stately pace looking badass with long coats flapping in the breeze.

 

[billd91]

This is an important point. Who is deciding that there WILL be a chase seen and at what point was this decided?

Huh. Usually, when the PCs start chasing someone, I assume I'm going to have a chase scene. Go figure.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Huh. Usually, when the PCs start chasing someone, I assume I'm going to have a chase scene. Go figure.

Well, it seemed (from the way the part I quoted was written) that the chase scene was being discussed from a GM perspective, what with the musing about the npc route taken.

 

[Imaro]

Ironically, Imaro's comment to JC here, seems contradictory. I've been advocating using mechanics to simulate the decision process. Declaring absolutes like "the NPC takes the best path" is narrating. So I would say I am advocating a simulationist approach.

Why do you assume that I am a proponent for "simulation" in this argument. In this entire discussion I have used 4e terms and mechanics... and 4e is not known for it's simulationist bent, so I don't get why you keep assuming this. I don't believe (and I may well be mistaken) I have argued for simulationism at all in this thread.

As to Imaro's concern to creating challenge or complication to the game or story, that's what failure is. Failing to win the skill check is the complication. No different than failing to hit the bad guy. The challenge is by making the bad guy sufficiently skilled to justify him having the chance to beat me.

Emphasis mine: This is what I have been arguing for... game and story.

See I think you find the challenge in simulationism, or the simulating of the skillset that the bad guy has and whether the random rolling of the dice through the use of that skillset says that is what happened. That's not what I'm concerned with and I don't think 4e is a particularly good engine for running that type of game (but that's a whole other discussion).

Ok, since you want some type of simulation or a sense of mechanical fairness...Here's a better example.

What if I made this a skill challenge where one of the complications is that making a local(Know) check to locate a shorter route is an automatic failure and counts towards the total failures for the skill challenge. Is this any different from a DM deciding a paticular NPC can't be influenced positively with Intimidation and checks with said skill result in a failure? Mechanically it's not. So is this fair? It seems it is mechanically... and in 4e I can fluff this however I want... "The NPC takes the most direct route" and there you go.

I have added to the challenge of gameplay through my skill challenge complication (which was just the mechanical formalization of me stating that the NPC took the most direct route anyway.) and added to the story with the extra tension and drama that the complication's narrative brings.

So does formalizing it through mechanics in any way make it more "right" in your eyes? Personally I'm not seeing the difference in what I did here and me just stating that the NPC takes the most direct route, I mean except for the wordcount.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hey, I don't disagree. The shortcut check is one of many options I'm going to quickly consider when I hit the street in hot pursuit of the NPC.

I may even expect that if I can't see the NPC, but know he's heading to point B, that a skill check is in order just to get me directions to the Point B (with higher rolls = a better route). Or the GM shows me the city map and says "which way do you take?"

Once the route factor is determined, then I'm hoping I can run faster to ensure I get there first. So the shortcut being granted, isn't the end of anything.

Ironically, Imaro's comment to JC here, seems contradictory. I've been advocating using mechanics to simulate the decision process. Declaring absolutes like "the NPC takes the best path" is narrating. So I would say I am advocating a simulationist approach.

As to Imaro's concern to creating challenge or complication to the game or story, that's what failure is. Failing to win the skill check is the complication. No different than failing to hit the bad guy. The challenge is by making the bad guy sufficiently skilled to justify him having the chance to beat me.

Again, we're on the same page. I love when that happens (no XP possible, of course!). I'm all for the NPC having to make the same checks the party would make.

On the subject of other routes, I might take a less viable route through town, if I thought I could get there faster. That is, say the villain is on Route A, which is the fastest, most direct route (it takes 5 minutes double moving [or 10 minutes at a walk] to reach his destination). I might take Route B, which is 7 minutes double moving (or 14 at a walk). Why? I'd hope that if he saw us lose him, he might slow down to be more inconspicuous. In such a case, as long as we jog to the destination, we'll arrive a couple minutes ahead of him, still cutting him off. He might keep jogging, sure, but he might not, either. It'd be a gamble, but a less direct route might still be "faster" depending on the speed the villain moves.

But yeah, it comes back to decisions the GM has to make, and fair ways to do it. Deciding if the NPC keeps jogging to get somewhere faster or slows down to remain inconspicuous is a lot less clear mechanically than having him make a Streetwise or Knowledge (local) check to know the best route. That comes down more to GM fiat than determining the route, in my opinion. It's NPC personality, for which they have little mechanics for (and that's good, in my opinion, as well).

Just some thoughts on it. As always, play what you like