Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[scourger]

Bad. I tried to give my players a little narrative control in our current game, and they didn't like it. I think they could go for the chase shortcut if they came up with it, but it would come down to their idea plus a skill roll to resolve it. I find that the players affect the story through their actions, successes & failures. They usually don't want to help define the story.

 

[Hussar]

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

I would agree with that. Sandbox play certainly lends itself towards exploration of the world. However, that world exists in potentia until such time as its actually been interacted with. IOW, unless it's come up in play, nothing actually truly exists.

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

I generally have no problems with the players influencing things. Since I was playing D&D, there are no real mechanics for players directly narrating, but, I would certainly allow most suggestions. If the players wanted to find something, for example, they generally would. Then again, I have very good players, so, their suggestions automatically take the game into account and are intended to improve the game.

A minor example might be one of my players who wanted a magic item with magic pockets. He just wanted something that he could reach into at various points in time and pull out something strange. So, he got it and I used a rather massive random table to find out what he had in his pocket each time he reached in. Sometimes it would be incorporated into the game, sometimes not.

But, as far as the world being a fixed point before the PC's interacted with it? Not a chance. Heck, I replaced one region with the 3e rebuild of White Plume Mountain at one point.

 

[Hussar]

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.

OTOH, that's simply poor design in any case. Deciding ahead of time that a fairly logical step is an automatic failure, that carries consequences and has no way of being known before the attempt is always poor design. That's not adding a challenge, that's just road blocking, and, if taken to an extreme, railroading.

 

[Janx]

Once i realize there's rules to cover the situation, i try to use the rules to model it.

I dont assume i have a chase planned. But if a chase happens, and the players askabout routing and shortcuts, as in this thread, itbecomes obvious to me that some rules can be applied.

That keeps me honest.

Additionally, since i trend to level appropriate challenges, if the npc is a few levelsabove the pcs, that still limits his streetwise to level+3 + other bonuses. He can't be mega awesome just because.

Also, of note. I play 3.x. I am not familiar with 4e, nor do i particularly care to. So everything i'm saying should be considered from that context. If it matters.

 

[Jhaelen]

But you haven't provided an objectively good reason fore taking such a blanket stance... that's my problem with your statements, nothing in them shows me why this is a better way.

It's better because that approach doesn't restrict options for no good reason other than "because I say so"!

This reminds me of the 'Tomb of Horrors' module. To quote one of countless examples:

Pulling the lever opens a trap door immediately in front of the fresco and dumps you into a 30 foot deep pit filled with spikes! The module is careful to note that the trap door is three feet thick and cannot be detected by sounding or by any magic which detects traps. Even True Seeing will only show the outlines of the trap door. "t will not show what it does."

The module designer just decides that magic cannot detect the trap. And to me that's only a small step away from declaring that there's only one way (or n ways) to circumvent an obstacle, i.e. the way(s) that the designer happened to think of.

E.g. countless adventures feature doors that cannot be unlocked 'by any means' except using the proper key (or alternatively by solving a riddle) without explaining why that is the case.

This is particularly annoying in a game that features spells (or other means) that seem to be designed to allow the pcs to do exactly that which the adventure designer explicitly forbids.

It also reminds me of video games that flat out state "You cannot go there." or "You cannot do that." except in that case I can understand why there is a limitation (You cannot code for every contingency). Tabletop RPGs should be free from such artificial limitations.

 

[Imaro]

I would agree with that. Sandbox play certainly lends itself towards exploration of the world. However, that world exists in potentia until such time as its actually been interacted with. IOW, unless it's come up in play, nothing actually truly exists.

Can you unerstand why for some people (players and DM's) this would not be to their tastes in an exploration game. They want to explore the world that the DM has created but if he changes and modifies things as he pleases what exactly is a player exploring?

I generally have no problems with the players influencing things. Since I was playing D&D, there are no real mechanics for players directly narrating, but, I would certainly allow most suggestions. If the players wanted to find something, for example, they generally would. Then again, I have very good players, so, their suggestions automatically take the game into account and are intended to improve the game.

A minor example might be one of my players who wanted a magic item with magic pockets. He just wanted something that he could reach into at various points in time and pull out something strange. So, he got it and I used a rather massive random table to find out what he had in his pocket each time he reached in. Sometimes it would be incorporated into the game, sometimes not.

See I'm not a big fan of wishlists but to each his own... I again would find it unsatisfactory to play in a game based around survival and exploration where I can just will into exsistence a magic item I want. For me it cheapens the experience of this type of game, I want to discover, face and overcome the things in the sandbox with my own cleverness and ingenuity (as opposed to story power). YMMV of course. On the other hand I find it odd that you can't see the detriments of promoting this style without qualifiers, as earlier even you admitted youwould probably run differently with new players as opposed to the ones you have now.

But, as far as the world being a fixed point before the PC's interacted with it? Not a chance. Heck, I replaced one region with the 3e rebuild of White Plume Mountain at one point.

Hey to each his own, as I said earlier I think that the DM switchng things as well as I as a player having the power to "suggest" things into exsistence wouldn't be to my tastes... but then again that's my point, one style doesn't fit all.

 

[Imaro]

OTOH, that's simply poor design in any case. Deciding ahead of time that a fairly logical step is an automatic failure, that carries consequences and has no way of being known before the attempt is always poor design. That's not adding a challenge, that's just road blocking, and, if taken to an extreme, railroading.

Wait so any skill challenge in which a group of PC's can't bring every skill to bear and certain skills (like wasting time looking for a shortcut when there isn't one.) are logically failures is bad design... I'm sorry but I disagree. The same way I design terrain that hinders and restricts options or traps that draw actions away from the main combat... it is nothing more than a complication I have injected into the mechanics.

So do you think making a grizzled veteran warrior NPC be negatively influenced (resulting in failures) by intimidation checks is bad design? It's the exact same mechanics...

 

[Imaro]

Also, of note. I play 3.x. I am not familiar with 4e, nor do i particularly care to. So everything i'm saying should be considered from that context. If it matters.

I think this has alot to do with it. In the more simulationist ruleset of PF/3.x I would probably set things up as you have... but 4e is not built on a simulationist foundation and the tools it provides aren't, IMO all that well suited to that style.

EDIT: Just as an example... in most skill challenges as described in the DMG... NPC skill doesn't really play a part in how hard or easy the challenge is.

 

[Nagol]

OTOH, that's simply poor design in any case. Deciding ahead of time that a fairly logical step is an automatic failure, that carries consequences and has no way of being known before the attempt is always poor design. That's not adding a challenge, that's just road blocking, and, if taken to an extreme, railroading.

Actually, that's a consequence of imperfect information and happens all the time – something appears one way but really is something else. A PC may cast Charm Person on a succubus in the shape of a human female, but it automatically fails – because it isn't a human female.

A person may believe that route B will be faster than route A and be wrong – thus the failure – imagine a Moriarty-like character arranging for this normally slow route to be the fastest for today – traffic on this route has be blocked/routed away while the normally good route is conveniently blocked by a minion intentionally crashing his carriage. A true Moriarty-type will arrange such a thing because he knows the PCs are intimately familiar with the city and likely to go for the alternatives.

If the PCs decide to follow and hound the bad guy then they can keep him in sight and continue to work to catch him i.e. don't suffer a failure.

If they try to get in front, they lose valuable time as he anticipated that possibility. That time loss isn't fatal to the scenario, but does count as a loss in the skill challenge.

 

[Imaro]

It's better because that approach doesn't restrict options for no good reason other than "because I say so"!

Mechanically I have created a harder challenge without eliminating the majority of alternate means to solve said challenge... I have also given a reason, the NPC is taking the most direct route.

The module designer just decides that magic cannot detect the trap. And to me that's only a small step away from declaring that there's only one way (or n ways) to circumvent an obstacle, i.e. the way(s) that the designer happened to think of.

There are always only n ways to circumvent an obstacle... why should any and everything be a possibility at all times?

E.g. countless adventures feature doors that cannot be unlocked 'by any means' except using the proper key (or alternatively by solving a riddle) without explaining why that is the case.

This is particularly annoying in a game that features spells (or other means) that seem to be designed to allow the pcs to do exactly that which the adventure designer explicitly forbids.

Well I have explained why the PC's cannot use Know(local) in the specific way of finding a shortcut...because the NPC is taking the most direct route. If you equate me setting up one skill as unuseable and an auto-failure with there being only one solution to capture the villain... Well that seems mopre a failing on your part to think of other options as I have certainly listed numerous alternatives earlier in the thread.

It also reminds me of video games that flat out state "You cannot go there." or "You cannot do that." except in that case I can understand why there is a limitation (You cannot code for every contingency). Tabletop RPGs should be free from such artificial limitations.

That doesn't mean everything should be possible in every situation. Again I point to terrain, hazards and traps... these are all in-combat ways of making the encounter harder, limiting available choices and making the situation more complicated. why are these good and interesting to use in combat, but when I do the same thing in a skill challenge it's "bad design" and objectively wrong?