Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Janx]

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?

I don't know yet.

There is something fishy about the GM claiming the NPC took the perfect route and that my PC cannot find a shorter route.

This is different than my PC trying to claim his skill-check can change the material the floor is made of.

Perhaps, it is guided by my real-life experience with routing software. On this topic, I personally have more experience with the concepts involved and can discern that it is not a simple matter.

it could be akin to a paramedic player calling BS when the DM uses some medical concept incorrectly and a game outcome hinges on that incorrectness. The paramedic is correct, but the DM's wrongness gets in the way.

There's also the matter of what is a Fact in a fictional universe where most of the details are not defined.

The pit existing in Room 1a, 2 squares north and 1 square east is a fact. It's on the map, and quite clearly meant to be there. Its factiness is both weighty and obvious when you enter the room. There may even be a shortest path from the 2 doors in the room around the pit that is provable and testable by its obviousness on the dungeon map. it is objective.

The NPC taking the "best" route in a city is based on fuzzy logic. The DM didn't really measure it. It is subjective that it is so because the facts of it rely on details that are not established facts.

Perhaps that is the difference. Objective Facts which are inherently provable by looking at the stat block, inventory list, room description, dungeon map.

And Subjective Facts which are things the DM says are true, but aren't really born out by Objective Facts. They are instead based on abstract assumptions of the game world.

If we accept that a Shortcut is a different kind of fact than a Pit in Room 1A, we should ponder from there how it is different from other things.

The NPC killed the mayor. We didn't roll for it, so that's a made-up fact. Obviously the PCs object to it, but they were not there to contest it directly.

The NPC planned his escape route. He probably did. How well he planned it is of course up to debate. And Int 10 NPC does not plan as well as an Int 19 NPC.

I think in all cases, we agree the NPC thinks he has the best route. I of course debate that the NPC may not ACTUALLY have the best route.

And that the DM might be making a mistake by insisting it is so.

Up to date, I have been unable to articulate the precise reason why. I can tell you this. When I object to something, it does usually turn out that there's a good technical reason, even if I don't have an immediate explanation. There's something special about this situation, that as a GM, it bears consideration.

PS. When I wrote "I would advise writing that the NPC takes the most direct route in my notes. And at game time, I would certainly disregard it." that was a dyslexic typo. I meant to say I wount NOT advice writing that down.

 

[Nagol]

It's as easy to abstract as any other section of the universe.

Adventure Designer: The map looks pretty straightforward, but there could be some incidental slowdowns in the 3 miles of distance to his target. Knowledge:Local DC 18 to choose the fastest route. Oh look, the NPC rolled a total of 27 or better yet, oh look the NPC has +17 and can't fail.

Notes in adventure: The NPC is taking the fastest route. DC 18 to recognise the fact.

 

[Umbran]

I don't know yet.

Fair answer.

Perhaps that is the difference. Objective Facts which are inherently provable by looking at the stat block, inventory list, room description, dungeon map.

And Subjective Facts which are things the DM says are true, but aren't really born out by Objective Facts. They are instead based on abstract assumptions of the game world.

If we accept that a Shortcut is a different kind of fact than a Pit in Room 1A, we should ponder from there how it is different from other things.

The NPC killed the mayor. We didn't roll for it, so that's a made-up fact. Obviously the PCs object to it, but they were not there to contest it directly.

The NPC planned his escape route. He probably did. How well he planned it is of course up to debate.

The PCs were not there to contest the death of the Mayor, so we don't get to debate that fact.

The PCs were not present to contest the planning of the escape either. But, apparently we debate whether it was done properly?

That is inconsistent. The planning is not any more subjective than the murder.

I'll give you an alternative: The killing of the mayor, and the planning of the escape, are all history. Unless your game includes extensive time travel, the players don't get to contest history that the PCs didn't experience.

The execution of escape, however, is ongoing, in the game's present. That is a different kettle of fish. The PCs can act in the present, and alter the future, while the past is immutable.

As for rationale - that becomes much easier when you view it this way. The NPC planned an escape. I ask you all, how often does travel go exactly according to plan? Current events (say, a mule-cart upturned in the middle of the street, or slipping and falling on night-slops just dropped from a window, or whatnot) can lead to the NPC not acting exactly according to plan. The GM is now instead rolling to see if the PC has a route that is better in the practice of the moment, instead of better in theory.

And, isn't that what we use dice for? In theory, the fighter knows how to swing a sword very well. In theory, he'll always hit. In practice, he might miss - and we use the dice to check the practice, not the theory!

The PCs and the NPC are in a contest to see who reaches point B soonest. The NPC has a head start and a plan, so he gets a bonus on his roll. But maybe the PCs can think of some things that'll get them bonuses on their roll, or maybe they'll just roll really well!

Considered that way, allowing the PCs to try makes a whole lot more sense, and we avoid the hairy (and perhaps pedantic) determination of what kind of "fact" we are dealing with.

 

[Janx]

Fair answer.



The PCs were not there to contest the death of the Mayor, so we don't get to debate that fact.

The PCs were not present to contest the planning of the escape either. But, apparently we debate whether it was done properly?

That is inconsistent. The planning is not any more subjective than the murder.

I'll give you an alternative: The killing of the mayor, and the planning of the escape, are all history. Unless your game includes extensive time travel, the players don't get to contest history that the PCs didn't experience.

The execution of escape, however, is ongoing, in the game's present. That is a different kettle of fish. The PCs can act in the present, and alter the future, while the past is immutable.
..snip....

thanks for considering another way of looking at it. And it looks like you may have found a possible explanation.

contested events can use skill checks to be resolved.

I could certainly see the NPC who planned ahead getting a bonus or even being considered taking 20 (which could be pretty advantageous if he's just as skilled as the PCs).

Is the idea that the NPC/PCs are rolling to determine how they performed in getting to Point B and that the die results describe the random conditions they face an OK premise for most GMs? Rather than changing a concrete, set in stone path that was predetermined?

For a big city with a complex route, I never considered the Route to be an immutable fact. Merely a fuzzy explanation of "the NPC knows the backways of the city like the back of his hand..."

So if he blows the roll and the PCs roll well, I'd finish with "...but you know it better than he, so you manage to get there first."

As an additional note, having a shortcut doesn't mean victory either. Assuming both parties are running, I'd think Run checks are in order. And the complication to the shortcut might include a climb or Jump check if it involved hopping a wall or jumping across a building.

I'd doubt there are any shortcuts where the NPC who is "trying" to take the best route has to run, but the PCs can walk along the shortcut and easily beat him. I suspect a shortcut merely gives the CHANCE to beat the NPC, assuming other things along the shortcut go OK. Given that shortcuts are typicall non-obvious paths.

 

[The Shaman]

contested events can use skill checks to be resolved. . . . Is the idea that the NPC/PCs are rolling to determine how they performed in getting to Point B and that the die results describe the random conditions they face an OK premise for most GMs? Rather than changing a concrete, set in stone path that was predetermined?

that's a good idea . . . hey, didn't I read something like that already in this thread?

In the [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] example of the adventurer seeking a shortcut, that isn't the end of engaging the mechanics in the games I run. If, based on my knowledge of the setting, a short cut isn't plausible, there's still a pursuit to be had, in which all sorts of rolls may come into play; maybe the adventurers decide to try to make their own shortcut by climbing a building and running along a roof top (my map of Paris is detailed enough to make this a plausible action), or maybe they commandeer a horse (which can involve its own set of skill checks), or maybe they just flat out chase the guy (which results in opposed rolls for movement and detection).

Saying, "No, there is no shortcut," doesn't end engaging the rules of the game.

For a big city with a complex route, I never considered the Route to be an immutable fact.

Whereas I often have a pretty detailed notion of what my cities look like.

My Paris map doesn't show every alley, and it doesn't show every drover's cart and merchant's stall either, but the assumption for the players and myself is that there are alleys and small courtyards behind most of the buildings on the map and I can tell them if a particular route is thronged with traffic at a given time of day or not, so they can attempt to figure out a faster route if they like.

At that point, it comes down to the dice.

As an additional note, having a shortcut doesn't mean victory either. Assuming both parties are running, I'd think Run checks are in order. And the complication to the shortcut might include a climb or Jump check if it involved hopping a wall or jumping across a building.

Like that.

I typically use opposed rolls if both sides are running; if the adventurers roll better, perhaps their quarry slipped on the slime from an emptied chamber pot or tripped over a begging urchin; if the adventurers roll poorly, the alley is blocked with debris, or they found the chamber pot leavings instead.

 

[Janx]

that's a good idea . . . hey, didn't I read something like that already in this thread?


Whereas I often have a pretty detailed notion of what my cities look like.

.

I think u and I and have driving in the same direction on this thread, maybe just on parallel streets. Yours must have been closer to Point B.

But if I'd seen your map, I could have taken the shortcut by scooting between those 2 buildings and hopping the fence and...

Nice map. I see where there's room for shortcuts by someone who knows th area.

 

[pemerton]

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 don't see the issue as one of "fairness" so much as "interest". Is the scene/challenge in which Streetwise, or Intimidation, automatically fails an interesting one? Part of that depends on external considerations (eg will it please the players, or produce a player revolt?) and part depends on internal considerations (eg in the Intimidate case, a successful Insight check can let the players know that Intimidation has no chance of success - what is the analogue of that for the Streetwise case?).

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?

This comes up fairly often when running 4e. I think the key is to make the fiction count. For example, give the players a reason not to have their PCs tip their hands about knowledge of shortcuts. Then they won't use them all the time.

In my own game, the PCs who are trained in Intimidate nevetheless sometimes use Diplomacy, or those who are trained in Diplomacy nevertheless sometimes use Bluff, because they want to befriend people rather than scare them, or to trick them rather than be honest with them.

I tend to agree that giving players narrative control probably won't work if the players regard themselves as subject to no constraints on the choices that they make, other than considerations of mechanical optimality.

 

[Hussar]

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?
/snip

So, basically, you're saying that any Sandbox campaign must be 100% built before you'd play in it? And that once the Sandbox is built, the DM cannot ever change any detail in it afterward?

Does anyone actually play this way?

 

[Imaro]

So, basically, you're saying that any Sandbox campaign must be 100% built before you'd play in it? And that once the Sandbox is built, the DM cannot ever change any detail in it afterward?

No, not 100% that would be absurd. My point is that before we go stating for a fact that the default should be yes to narrative control by the players... Perhaps we should consider certain styles of play as well as player mentality where less in that area is more. See that's really my problem, it's not that I think narrative control for players is inherently bad... It's that some people are presenting it as if oin all situations that it's the objectively better option, when that isn't always the case.

Does anyone actually play this way?

I'm not sure, you could always start a poll if it's important to know.

 

[Jhaelen]

See that's really my problem, it's not that I think narrative control for players is inherently bad... It's that some people are presenting it as if oin all situations that it's the objectively better option, when that isn't always the case.

I think this discussion isn't going anywhere fast. Claiming objectivity is tricky.

I've not yet seen any argument convincing me that arbitrarily restricting options can ever be better than not doing so. So, subjectively, I think, you're wrong

You've said it can make a challenge 'harder'. That's true of course. But does it create a 'better' challenge? 'Harder' doesn't equal 'better'. As someone else pointed out, restricting too many options a priori will lead to a game of 'guess what the DM's thinking'.

As a DM, if my players come up with a great idea I didn't think of, I'll usually play along unless I feel it will trivialize the challenge.
Since I don't absolutely define beforehand that some things are utterly impossible, I never run into the problem that I have to tell them that their cool idea cannot work because I happened to write down that it cannot work.

Not restriciting options beforehand gives me the freedom to decide on the spot if it would be better to allow it to (possibly) work or not. Why should I be a slave to things I've written down weeks ago? I'm not writing a novel!

I prefer it if nothing is fixed - let the players' actions (and their dice rolls) decide what happens!

Is that an objectively better approach than deciding beforehand that some actions cannot work? I don't know, but for me it's preferable.