Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Janx]

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.

Imagine we live in a world where DMs may be audited by the Game Master Authority. You've been audited. He's going to ask you to "prove it." Will your declaration of NPC perfect knowledge pass scrutiny?

I realize there's no such thing as the GMA and you are free to do what you want. Some of us are advising, "hey, be careful. that might not be the best practice."

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

Things being intentionally limited as "thought of by the NPC, and not the GM" should be a rarity. Moriarty is the rare exception where GM knowledge should be fully available to the NPC. The extreme abuse of this tactic is when every NPC is perfectly prepared for the PCs and thus able to counter the PCs every strategy.

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.

I forget who proposed this way back, but technically, if you're playing mapless, the PCs may still need to roll a check to see if they know how to get to point B, and to which route is the best for their needs. That last is important. Regardless of what the GM is doing behind the screen, the PCs don't know that, and are still going to pursue taking they best route they can. They aren't going to deliberately take the worst route.

Which has the ironic twist. The route the PCs take is uncertain. If they fail the skill check miserably, they may completely miss Moriarty's trap by way of incompetence.

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?

How about it being bad practice if done all the time. And when someone talks of "I'll do it this way because I'm the GM" it sounds like they're on the way to bad GMing land.


I can't put my finger on it, but there's also a difference in the GM creating starting conditions and hard facts like, there IS a pit trap in the room that the fight takes place versus the NPC knowing the perfect route and planning tricks along the way for the PC.

One is about real world positional facts. The bad guys live in the dungeon of doom. They know the pit trap is there (perhaps Phil fell in?). When the PCs show up, they fight, and use the pit to their advantage.

The other is about an intangible map and information and execution of a chase. There's so many variables there that as a person familiar with the subject of routing, only very special NPCs would be certain of truly having it right. Anybody else (not Moriarty) would be better simulated by die rolls.

 

[Mort]

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

While there may only be n ways to circumvent an obstacle it is highly likely that the DM has not thought of all of them. If the DM always allows only ways that he has thought of and no others, the players are likely to be playing "guess what the DM is thinking" instead of actually solving challanges. For me, this is not a desired result.

This isn't even a player narrative control issue - this is a player creativity/versatility issue. My players routinely come up with solutions that I have never considered, I'm not about to penalize them for that.

 

[Imaro]

Imagine we live in a world where DMs may be audited by the Game Master Authority. You've been audited. He's going to ask you to "prove it." Will your declaration of NPC perfect knowledge pass scrutiny?

I realize there's no such thing as the GMA and you are free to do what you want. Some of us are advising, "hey, be careful. that might not be the best practice."

But you're not giving any objective reason except preference for why it may not be the best practice... and your example assumes that this mythical GMA shares your preferences... care to elaborate on a logical reason, as opposed to because you say so or because it is your preference?

Things being intentionally limited as "thought of by the NPC, and not the GM" should be a rarity. Moriarty is the rare exception where GM knowledge should be fully available to the NPC. The extreme abuse of this tactic is when every NPC is perfectly prepared for the PCs and thus able to counter the PCs every strategy.

I think extreme abuse of any tactic, including player narrative control, being a bad thing is a given... good thing that isn't what either of us have been arguing for.

I forget who proposed this way back, but technically, if you're playing mapless, the PCs may still need to roll a check to see if they know how to get to point B, and to which route is the best for their needs. That last is important. Regardless of what the GM is doing behind the screen, the PCs don't know that, and are still going to pursue taking they best route they can. They aren't going to deliberately take the worst route.

I never had a condition in the SC that the PC's can't take the best route they can think of...using Know(local). However a condition of the SC is that they cannot use the Know(local) skill to find a more direct route than the villain...without it resulting in a failure.

Which has the ironic twist. The route the PCs take is uncertain. If they fail the skill check miserably, they may completely miss Moriarty's trap by way of incompetence.

This really has no bearing on the skill challenge I presented, but could certainly be worked into a skill challenge as a condition if one felt so inclined.

How about it being bad practice if done all the time. And when someone talks of "I'll do it this way because I'm the GM" it sounds like they're on the way to bad GMing land.

And giving over total narrative control of the game to players can be bad practice if done all the time... When a GM talks of "I didn't prepare anything so you guys just make up what happens and who you fight and what rewards you get and I'll just handle the mechanics." I would argue it sounds like he is also on his way to bad GM'ing land.

Again it's a good thing no one is speaking to extremes (at least I am not).

I can't put my finger on it, but there's also a difference in the GM creating starting conditions and hard facts like, there IS a pit trap in the room that the fight takes place versus the NPC knowing the perfect route and planning tricks along the way for the PC.

I don't see it... both are complications in an encounter. Plain and simple.

One is about real world positional facts. The bad guys live in the dungeon of doom. They know the pit trap is there (perhaps Phil fell in?). When the PCs show up, they fight, and use the pit to their advantage.

Doesn't this also create a narrative fact within the game world? Would you allow a PC with a successful Know(Dungeoneering) check to be able to narrate that rubble has fallen into the pit and filled it up so they can walk across it now?

The other is about an intangible map and information and execution of a chase. There's so many variables there that as a person familiar with the subject of routing, only very special NPCs would be certain of truly having it right. Anybody else (not Moriarty) would be better simulated by die rolls.

It is a simple complication added by the GM to an encounter. That is all.

All the other stuff you are listing above is just narrative fluff wrapoped around the skill challenge presented.

This is why the ruleset being used is important to the conversation, I am not trying to simulate anything when using 4e I am trying to create a challenging game (on it's gamist side) and a narrative that fits the mechanics (on it's narrative side). Trying to simulate this the way you claim by the rules of 4e doesn't work particularly well.

Even in a skill challenge without my complications added in... the NPC's Know(local) skill wouldn't factor in at all (at most his level, not his knowledge, would set the DC's of the checks made.) thus your simulation would still be terrible as his knowledge would play no part in whether the PC's pick a better route than him or not.

 

[Nagol]

While there may only be n ways to circumvent an obstacle it is highly likely that the DM has not thought of all of them. If the DM always allows only ways that he has thought of and no others, the players are likely to be playing "guess what the DM is thinking" instead of actually solving challanges. For me, this is not a desired result.

This isn't even a player narrative control issue - this is a player creativity/versatility issue. My players routinely come up with solutions that I have never considered, I'm not about to penalize them for that.

I don't anyone is advocating that position; quite the opposite. The route the villain is taking and the fact is is the most direct were noted items -- the map with the route exists after all.

In fact, this appears to be the only constraint we're are definitely aware of. Nothing in the original stuation suggests only a single solution is permissable or that the outcome is foregone -- just that the route is known. It is the most direct and/or fastest.

 

[Imaro]

While there may only be n ways to circumvent an obstacle it is highly likely that the DM has not thought of all of them. If the DM always allows only ways that he has thought of and no others, the players are likely to be playing "guess what the DM is thinking" instead of actually solving challanges. For me, this is not a desired result.

Where did anyone do this? Eliminating one avenue to solve a situation does not in itself eliminate all but one avenue to solve said situation. They really are totally different things. .. and I have given ample examples of alternative solutions and actions earlier in the thread to discredit this notion.

By eliminating one possible solution I have perhaps made it a more challenging encounter for my players... but I haven't excluded all solutions I may not have thought of... I have only excluded one that I actually did think of and decided would not be applicable in this particualr challenge.

This isn't even a player narrative control issue - this is a player creativity/versatility issue. My players routinely come up with solutions that I have never considered, I'm not about to penalize them for that.

You shouldn't penalize them for that, but if you stated in your notes that the NPC takes the most direct route... it is a solution you thought of, and rejected for this encounter. So I fail to see how the paragraph above is in any way applicable to the discussion.

Or are we automatically assuming extremes and worse case scenarios here... because if so it seems that only those of one side are being pointed out.

 

[Janx]

But you're not giving any objective reason except preference for why it may not be the best practice... and your example assumes that this mythical GMA shares your preferences... care to elaborate on a logical reason, as opposed to because you say so or because it is your preference?

Because when the GMA says "prove it" they mean for you to take the role of the NPC and prove you actually have the better route. Show it on the map. then account for the bestnest of this route by the vaguaries of the map. The same vaguaries that if the NPC can take advantage of, so can the PCs.


On dungeering skill being used to fill the hole. BS. I don't give players the ability to change physical reality by declaring it to be so. The pit is there is a fact. dungeering can give them info about the hole the players did not know. it cannot change the fact that there is a pit to a former pit filled with debris.

Asking if there is a shortcut isn't changing a solid fact. the entire city exists as a vague representation on the map. Details have not been documented like alleyways, back doors, etc. As such, you can't tell me Moriarty has the perfect route if you don't prove it to me. Show me EVERY doorway, alleyway and floor plan of EVERY building, backyards and fences on your map. Because a shortcut will likely take advantage of that level of detail that exists on no map.

I doubt any character will know or have access to the full details of the city.
Somebody familiar with the area and scouting it, will spot SOME of those details that they use to cross Mrs. Roger's yard by hopping the fence and shaving a block on the route to St. Andrew's church. Differing characters will have different details in their experience.

again, asking for details or summarizing in the form of asking "Is there a shortcut" is not true player narrative or forced content generation. There is a fuzziness of information that justifies the possibility that something exists that was not explicitly defined because the act of defining it is too much work.

If we're arguing that asking about a shortcut is the same as the player telling the GM that the stone floor is really made of wood, then we're clearly not on the same plane of discussion.

 

[Janx]

Where did anyone do this? Eliminating one avenue to solve a situation does not in itself eliminate all but one avenue to solve said situation. They really are totally different things. .. and I have given ample examples of alternative solutions and actions earlier in the thread to discredit this notion.

By eliminating one possible solution I have perhaps made it a more challenging encounter for my players... but I haven't excluded all solutions I may not have thought of... I have only excluded one that I actually did think of and decided would not be applicable in this particualr challenge.



You shouldn't penalize them for that, but if you stated in your notes that the NPC takes the most direct route... it is a solution you thought of, and rejected for this encounter. So I fail to see how the paragraph above is in any way applicable to the discussion.

Or are we automatically assuming extremes and worse case scenarios here... because if so it seems that only those of one side are being pointed out.

You've mis-attributed here. It was Mort who said it's not a player narrrative issue.

I would advise writing that the NPC takes the most direct route in my notes. And at game time, I would certainly disregard it.

At the game event, I would consider what the NPC would do, with the knowledge the NPC has. If his inclination is to run, he'll run, using the best route he can think of at the time.

but note, I don't declare or assume he truly has the best route. Only that his intent is to take the best route. People do all sorts of things that they think are optimal, but may not in actuality be the optimal choice.

As a observation to 4e, they use the term Skill Challenge, which strikes me as an encounter where a specific skill is called for to resolve.

I don't know what I'd call it, but I'd consider any non-combat, non-social problem to be a challenge that might have an obvious skill to use (Swim to get across the river), but other skills or ideas may be applied. As a GM, I don't even waste time thinking about it. Let the PCs surprise me with an alternative solution.

This chase situation is just that. I might have a note that says the NPC is cowardly and will run to Point B where his escape portal awaits. From that, I deliberately do not plan much more.

I want to organically run the encounter, so I can abjudicate what the PCs think to do, rather than abjudicate what I planned for them to do.

 

[Umbran]

Because when the GMA says "prove it" they mean for you to take the role of the NPC and prove you actually have the better route. Show it on the map. then account for the bestnest of this route by the vaguaries of the map. The same vaguaries that if the NPC can take advantage of, so can the PCs.

I think you might be misunderstanding Imaro's question.

Why does the GMA ask "prove it" in the first place? Why do they care if the NPC had the knowledge or not? Is it because Janx says so, or for some other reason you can articulate, beyond your personal preference?

 

[Imaro]

Because when the GMA says "prove it" they mean for you to take the role of the NPC and prove you actually have the better route. Show it on the map. then account for the bestnest of this route by the vaguaries of the map. The same vaguaries that if the NPC can take advantage of, so can the PCs.

EDIT: Edited my answer because I think Umbran summed it up better than I am explaining it.

On dungeering skill being used to fill the hole. BS. I don't give players the ability to change physical reality by declaring it to be so. The pit is there is a fact. dungeering can give them info about the hole the players did not know. it cannot change the fact that there is a pit to a former pit filled with debris.

Asking if there is a shortcut isn't changing a solid fact. the entire city exists as a vague representation on the map. Details have not been documented like alleyways, back doors, etc. As such, you can't tell me Moriarty has the perfect route if you don't prove it to me. Show me EVERY doorway, alleyway and floor plan of EVERY building, backyards and fences on your map. Because a shortcut will likely take advantage of that level of detail that exists on no map.

In my notes both the pit exsisting in that room is a fact and the NPC taking the most direct route is also a fact... why is that so hard for you to accept.

When I place the pit in the room, do I have to prove through simulation of time, manpower, abilities, etc. that the inhabitants could have realistically built it? Why do I have such strenuous proof to meet on one complication of an encounter but not another... you seem to be quite inconsistent here. Do you prove every hindrance to the PC's out in the way you are demanding I do for the NPC's route in your own game? If so, where do you draw the line?

I doubt any character will know or have access to the full details of the city.

No one claimed they would.

Somebody familiar with the area and scouting it, will spot SOME of those details that they use to cross Mrs. Roger's yard by hopping the fence and shaving a block on the route to St. Andrew's church. Differing characters will have different details in their experience.

again, asking for details or summarizing in the form of asking "Is there a shortcut" is not true player narrative or forced content generation. There is a fuzziness of information that justifies the possibility that something exists that was not explicitly defined because the act of defining it is too much work.

But I did define it and it wasn't too much work. I have in this thread defined it in game terms with a skill challenge and defined it in narrative terms by attributing it as the NPC's knowledge.

If we're arguing that asking about a shortcut is the same as the player telling the GM that the stone floor is really made of wood, then we're clearly not on the same plane of discussion.

Well I'm arguing that using a skil check to eliminate a complication I have set up in an encounter is the same... I'm not sure what you are arguing for anymore. And I am also starting to think that perhaps due to system assumption or mechanical differences we are on two differnt planes of discussion.

 

[Imaro]

I would advise writing that the NPC takes the most direct route in my notes. And at game time, I would certainly disregard it.

So you wrote this down because???

At the game event, I would consider what the NPC would do, with the knowledge the NPC has. If his inclination is to run, he'll run, using the best route he can think of at the time.

So then why didn't you just write in your notes that the NPC will take the most direct route known to him... they are two different things. One is creating a definite complication for the PC's to overcome... the other is creating the potential for an complication to arise.

but note, I don't declare or assume he truly has the best route. Only that his intent is to take the best route. People do all sorts of things that they think are optimal, but may not in actuality be the optimal choice.

So then the notes you wrote are incorrect and it is actually more a failure in communicating what you really want out of the encounter. You don't want there to be an extra complication... you want there to be a chance of an extra complication to occur. That's cool, but then I would say your notes should reflect that.

As a observation to 4e, they use the term Skill Challenge, which strikes me as an encounter where a specific skill is called for to resolve.

Actually most skill challenges require the use of multiple skill checks by multiple PC's to resolve.

I don't know what I'd call it, but I'd consider any non-combat, non-social problem to be a challenge that might have an obvious skill to use (Swim to get across the river), but other skills or ideas may be applied. As a GM, I don't even waste time thinking about it. Let the PCs surprise me with an alternative solution.

You keep missing the point, they can still surprise you with an alternate solution in the scenario as I pressented it (not sure why this concept is ignored repeatedly in this discusion). All I did was eliminate a single option to increase the diffculty of winning this encounter.

This chase situation is just that. I might have a note that says the NPC is cowardly and will run to Point B where his escape portal awaits. From that, I deliberately do not plan much more.

And in this situation your notes reflect how you plan on running it, no facts as to his escape route have been written down (except for the fact that there is a portal at the end of it) so I have no problem with PC's trying to find a shortcut (given that they have knowledge of where the villain is going).

I want to organically run the encounter, so I can abjudicate what the PCs think to do, rather than abjudicate what I planned for them to do.

*sigh* how did disallowing a shortcut in any way lead the PC's down a planned road? In the end you are still abjudicating whether you think or don't think their ideas will work... I just did the exact same thing for a single idea beforehand... so what's the big deal?