Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Imaro]

Hey Jhaelen, the comments you quoted weren't Hussar's they were mine, it was probably due to the mess up in formating that happened when I quoted Hussar above my own post... that said, onto your post.

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

Well it's based on preference and often times preference just boils down to like or dislike as opposed to logically arguable facts.

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

Perhaps you didn't understand my argument, since no where have I argued for "arbitrary" restriction of options. In my example I didn't list all the skills and randomly pick some to work and some to exclude... that would be arbitrary. And for the record no one on the other side of the coin has convinced me either...go figure .

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'.

Easier doesn't equal better either. I think for some groups harder will equal better and for others easier will equate to a better game. I mean we add traps, hazards and terrain into encounters to make them "better" since a flat field with monsters is considered boring... the funny thing is really all we're doing is restricting options and setting parameters in a combat that would otherwise be a totally wide open, flat field to fight on... I don't find doing the same thing to encounters outside combat any different, do you? If so why? They are both challenges with particular complications added into them. Why is one right and one wrong to add complications to beforehand?


Bringing up the restriction of too many options at this point seems disingenuous as I, at least, have established that I am not discussing extremes... otherwise leaving too much open can leave the PCs in a world of chaos, that mutates on a whim and offers no challenge at all... see how that works. And honestly some part of the game is always 'guess what the DM is thinking' otherwise the game would be structureless.

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.

Emphasis mine: So your main beef is that some DM's decide beforehand whether they feel something wil "trivialize the challenge." (interesting since this seems to imply you don't want the challenge to be too easy since that would make it unsatisfying for you and your group) as opposed to in the game? Isn't this just two different methods for the same means? I mean you're still deciding that some of the ideas they think are cool can't work because they will trivialize the encounter (all in your opinion)... aren't you?

So you don't run into the "problem" (though I wouldn't consider it a problem) where you have to tell them that their cool ideas cannot work because you wrote down that particualr things can't work... You have traded it for the "problem" of having to tell them that their cool ideas don't work because you decided they would trivialize the encounter in the moment...Huh? What is the difference (besides one being done beforehand and the other being done on the spot)? Both are rulings that things can't be done and thus restrictions on your players... is the time in which these things decided really that big of a deal? Does it mater if I decide that a shortcut is not viable beforehand or in the game? Either way the end result is the same.

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 still don't see why a split second decision is better than thinking out the parameters of the encounter beforehand? It would seem that in one situation you have the time to think about the encounter, what you and your players want out of it and what would or wouldn't trivialize it... while in the other you have to make a snap decision. And really, are we back to arguing that setting restrictions and parameters, no matter how many other options, actions and decisions remain... is railroading (writing a novel)... this is just baseless hyperbole

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

So you would be perfectly fine with my pit example that I gave earlier in the thread? I can honestly say I have never played a D&D game or ran one where "nothing" is fixed.

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

And I totally understand that, can you also see why for some it may not be?

 

[Guest 85555]

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?

First Hussar your point about objectivity is well taken. Whatever gives you and your group the most fun, that is the right way to play. If you like inventing stuff as you go (all the time or on occassion), then I think you should play that way. My posts haven't been an attempt to tell you you're wrong, just to contrast my preferences with yours.

I am on i phone (so forgive) but wanted to answer your question, as it is a good one. My approach to D&D varies depending on whether the adventure is urban or exploration. But when I run a modern or urban game my style is a something I call character driven (it is very similar to the approach described in clash bowley's article Situational GMing). This has strong sandbox elements (at least the way I run it) but the focus is on characters, power groups, etc.

I basically drop my PCs into an interesting situation full of character conflicts, power plays and character dependant events. To do this I create all major characters fully in advance, sketch out minor characters and establish motives, goals , etc. This is all set in stone. The drama stems from PCs interacting with the set up and characterz, and my characters reacting to the PCs. So I make plenty of decisions on the fly. If a PC who is a member of the martino family makes a secret deal with an enemy boss, I need to decide how Michael Caesar Martino responds. My goal is twofold: give players total freedom over their characters in this context and create a consistent environment with colorful and fleshed out characters. All my improv needs to be rooted in the characters or in what course of events logically follow. When creating new characters on the fly I establish their motives and traits and stick with them.

This does require a good deal of note taking and prep. I use a daytimer to help plot out and adjust NPC behavior based on their motives and PC decisions. For me the important thing in this style of play is the GM is the source of all material external to PCs. So I wouldn't want a skill roll to change or create facts, just tell me how well they function in light of the facts. This works for me anyways. And I'd be lying if I said I never deviated from this philosophy (I wouldn't want to ruin fun because I feel The One Way must be adhered to at all times). Hope this explanation is helpful.

 

[Jhaelen]

In my example I didn't list all the skills and randomly pick some to work and some to exclude... that would be arbitrary.

Well, arbitrary =/= randomly, according to my preferred online dictionary. 'Randomly' implies chance is a factor, 'arbitrary' implies choice without good reason. Note that I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe I'm off here.

Deciding beforehand that skill A will work, while skill B will not, no matter what will actually happen in the future session is making an arbitrary decision. To get back to our example:
If I decide that it is impossible to find a shorter route than the npc, then that's arbitrary.
There's no reason why I couldn't have decided differently. It's impossible because I say so.

Emphasis mine: So your main beef is that some DM's decide beforehand whether they feel something wil "trivialize the challenge." [...] as opposed to in the game?

In a nutshell, yes!

What is the difference (besides one being done beforehand and the other being done on the spot)? Both are rulings that things can't be done and thus restrictions on your players... is the time in which these things decided really that big of a deal? Does it mater if I decide that a shortcut is not viable beforehand or in the game?

It's a world of a difference.
If I decide it on the fly, I can take everything into account that just happened in a session. If I decide beforehand, what happens in the session cannot matter. Instead of limiting myself to my own ideas I can take everyone's ideas into account.

Do you decide at the beginning of the month what you're going to eat every day of that month? Or do you sometimes decide spontaneously, "Well today, I'd like to have X."

Have you ever spontaneously decided in a game session to insert an encounter to shake things up because your player seem to dawdle, wasting time on boring stuff?

There's a second difference: I typically don't simply rule that something is going to work or not. I set a DC that is either easy, moderate or hard. If a player makes an awesome roll, I'm inclined to say it works. I'm not using binary decisions, I assign chances.

Either way the end result is the same.

No. It _can_ lead to the same end result but it doesn't have to. _That's_ the difference.

So you would be perfectly fine with my pit example that I gave earlier in the thread? I can honestly say I have never played a D&D game or ran one where "nothing" is fixed.

I must have missed the pit example - the thread is growing too fast for me to follow every post.

I'm talking about fixing details that don't need fixing and things that could be influenced by the pcs and therefore shouldn't be fixed. Things that can be fixed are things that are outside of the pc's influence.

E.g. the starting point of my last campaign was that an unknown force had eradicated two nearby villages. It wasn't until much later in the campaign that I actually decided who had done it. And it wasn't even really my decision: It was my players' actions in a particular adventure that decided it: They entered an alliance with a monstrous faction, so that faction's enemies were revealed as the 'evil guys' who were responsible for everything.

It's like Schrödinger's kitten: I don't decide if the cat is dead or not until my players decide to open the box!

Likewise I never use fixed timelines: What's the point of deciding that after 20 days X will happen? Isn't it preferable to let X happen when it has the best dramatic effect?

The Shaman posting that map of Paris was quite revealing for me: I'm taking every bet that this map was no longer accurate the moment it was finished (and that's assuming it ever was accurate in the first place)!
Saying 'there is no route' because the map doesn't show one strikes me as ludicrous:
Even today, where everyone is using GPS, people can get utterly lost, drive into rivers and generally find it impossible to find the shortest (let alone fastest) route from A to B. Why is that? It's because maps aren't reliable and become obsolete after a (relatively) short time.

But as I said in my last post: I'm not expecting to convince you of anything. I'm not even saying my approach is better than any other. I just found that it's the approach that works best for me and my players at this point in time.

 

[Imaro]

Deciding beforehand that skill A will work, while skill B will not, no matter what will actually happen in the future session is making an arbitrary decision. To get back to our example:
If I decide that it is impossible to find a shorter route than the npc, then that's arbitrary.
There's no reason why I couldn't have decided differently. It's impossible because I say so.

But by that usage of arbitrary...you do this all the time as a DM when designing things... the dungeon has a double door instead of a single because you decided... the woods are inhabited by wolves because you decided... The ruffians are looking for a barfight...because you decided... The vilain will have planned out the most direct route...because you decided.

In a nutshell, yes!
It's a world of a difference.
If I decide it on the fly, I can take everything into account that just happened in a session. If I decide beforehand, what happens in the session cannot matter. Instead of limiting myself to my own ideas I can take everyone's ideas into account.

But you don't decide everything on the fly...otherwise until your PC's made a suggestion there would be nothing for them to interact ordeal with. I am asking what decides what is correct to define beforehand and what isn't. And again there is a big distinction between deciding one factor of a situation... and nullifying any and everything ion the session to not mattering. Please let's end the hyperbole about this, it's been brought up and debunked numerous times in this thread. On another note some part of the adventure is always "limited" by your own ideas.

Do you decide at the beginning of the month what you're going to eat every day of that month? Or do you sometimes decide spontaneously, "Well today, I'd like to have X."

Again your analogy seems representative of the hyperbole I spoke about earlier in this post... deciding on a complication beforehand is not deciding everything or even majority of things in the encounter... If anything my example is more akin to planning one meal on one day of the month (and yes I have done this)... not every meal of every day of the month.

Have you ever spontaneously decided in a game session to insert an encounter to shake things up because your player seem to dawdle, wasting time on boring stuff?

Sure and I believe there is a time and place for that kind of playstyle... just as there is a time and place for a more structured playstyle. What I don't believe is that one is any more innately superior than the other in achieving fun, it's just to dependant upon other factors.

There's a second difference: I typically don't simply rule that something is going to work or not. I set a DC that is either easy, moderate or hard. If a player makes an awesome roll, I'm inclined to say it works. I'm not using binary decisions, I assign chances.

Yes because as I stated earlier you want the chance for their to be a complication... but me knowing my players and having DM'd for them, perhaps I reealize a situation is too easy/boring/whatever as it stands and decide that instead of there being the chance for a complication I will instead introduce one in the creation of the encounter. Do you see the difference?

Maybe this will illustrate it better... Again, taking the pit trap in the room example... Now there are a ton of things that could be placed in this pit... do you roll to see if the pit has spikes vs. acid vs. water vs. hot coals vs. etc? Or do you decide there is a complication with the pit trap and add whichever on e you want? Now how is this any different than me having added a single complication to a chase encounter beforehand? Please answer this as I feel like this is the pont everyone discussing from your position keep avoiding and ignoring... how is this any different?

No. It _can_ lead to the same end result but it doesn't have to. _That's_ the difference.

So since you see the difference do you see that in achieving what I want to (a complication in the encounter) my method is superior to yours as yours only gives the chance that there might be.

I must have missed the pit example - the thread is growing too fast for me to follow every post.

I'm talking about fixing details that don't need fixing and things that could be influenced by the pcs and therefore shouldn't be fixed. Things that can be fixed are things that are outside of the pc's influence.

But you still haven't explained why this philosophy is better? Or defined what does and doesn't "need" fixing. On another note how is the route my NPC chose... beforehand, anything that could be influenced by the PC's? It's not in the situation as presented originally.

E.g. the starting point of my last campaign was that an unknown force had eradicated two nearby villages. It wasn't until much later in the campaign that I actually decided who had done it. And it wasn't even really my decision: It was my players' actions in a particular adventure that decided it: They entered an alliance with a monstrous faction, so that faction's enemies were revealed as the 'evil guys' who were responsible for everything.

It's like Schrödinger's kitten: I don't decide if the cat is dead or not until my players decide to open the box!

It's funny because even though it wasn't decided beforehand this sounds like more of a railroad than what I am describing since no actions to discover who the villains were on the part of the players really had any meaning... There was nothing to discover until you made it all up at the end... And you can't see how unsatisfying this might be to some players, playstyles and GM's...

"Hey guys you didn't actually solve the mystery because thre never was one it was always going to be whoever I decided it was when I decided it..."

Likewise I never use fixed timelines: What's the point of deciding that after 20 days X will happen? Isn't it preferable to let X happen when it has the best dramatic effect?

You realize that in leaving it up to chance... it may very well not happen when it would have the best dramatic effect... so again I'm missing your point here.

The Shaman posting that map of Paris was quite revealing for me: I'm taking every bet that this map was no longer accurate the moment it was finished (and that's assuming it ever was accurate in the first place)!
Saying 'there is no route' because the map doesn't show one strikes me as ludicrous:
Even today, where everyone is using GPS, people can get utterly lost, drive into rivers and generally find it impossible to find the shortest (let alone fastest) route from A to B. Why is that? It's because maps aren't reliable and become obsolete after a (relatively) short time.

I didn't claim "no route because the map doesn't show it"... I claimed that my NPC was using the most direct route...worlds of difference there.

But as I said in my last post: I'm not expecting to convince you of anything. I'm not even saying my approach is better than any other. I just found that it's the approach that works best for me and my players at this point in time.

Cool and my opinion is that I will use either approach depending on what I and my players are trying to achieve in the gtame. To each their own.

 

[billd91]

But by that usage of arbitrary...you do this all the time as a DM when designing things... the dungeon has a double door instead of a single because you decided... the woods are inhabited by wolves because you decided... The ruffians are looking for a barfight...because you decided... The vilain will have planned out the most direct route...because you decided.

This is why authors in novels (and DMs in homegrown adventures, and adventure publishers) develop backstory for characters, situations, locations and so on. So it's not simply arbitrary, but flows from the backstory.

Why have double doors instead of single? Because the room was designed to hold more people and thus heightened traffic flow in and out was important. Because they had to move something large in and out from time to time. Because it was designed by the builders to have a certain look and majesty.

The woods are inhabited by wolves because they're a natural habitat for wolves and there are still substantial wild areas.

There is no shorter/faster route from point A to point B in the city than the one currently being taken by the NPC because that NPC already went out and checked it/timed it/engineered it to be so for a particular reason (like a thief fleeing a bank job knowing he'll be pursued).

 

[Imaro]

This is why authors in novels (and DMs in homegrown adventures, and adventure publishers) develop backstory for characters, situations, locations and so on. So it's not simply arbitrary, but flows from the backstory.

Why have double doors instead of single? Because the room was designed to hold more people and thus heightened traffic flow in and out was important. Because they had to move something large in and out from time to time. Because it was designed by the builders to have a certain look and majesty.

The woods are inhabited by wolves because they're a natural habitat for wolves and there are still substantial wild areas.

There is no shorter/faster route from point A to point B in the city than the one currently being taken by the NPC because that NPC already went out and checked it/timed it/engineered it to be so for a particular reason (like a thief fleeing a bank job knowing he'll be pursued).

What I was saying was that you can use whatever means sit right with you to justify your decision... but ultimately it's still an arbitrary (as used by Jhaelen) decision.

 

[The Shaman]

Deciding beforehand that skill A will work, while skill B will not, no matter what will actually happen in the future session is making an arbitrary decision.

The bridge is out. The adventurers can jump the gap, on foot or on horseback. The relevant skills are Acrobatics and Horsemanship.

They can try to span the gap with a log. Strength check to move it into place without if falling into the chasm; if they have a horse they can probably do something creative with that as well.

They can try to lasso a piling on the other side with a rope. Deterity check, then Strength (modified by Acrobatics) to cross it.

Are you suggesting it's arbitrary to say Seduction or Etiquette or Bribery won't get them across the chasm?

If the adventurers decide to seek aid, or suss out another route, then those skills may play a role. They won't get them over the gap, however, arbitrary as you may consider that to be.

If I decide that it is impossible to find a shorter route than the npc, then that's arbitrary.

From the Augustinian convent on the Quay des Augustins to the Louvre, there is one direct route: across Pont-Neuf. Crossing the Pont au Change instead, or taking the ferry downstream, both require that the traveller go far out of his way.

This is not arbitrary. This is a fact of the setting.

Have you ever spontaneously decided in a game session to insert an encounter to shake things up because your player seem to dawdle, wasting time on boring stuff?

If the players are spending time on something, it's because it's interesting to them, so I can safely assume they're not bored or they'd be doing something else.

They may find their deliberations interrupted by a random encounter, and I will remind them about time passing if it's in some way relevant to their planning, but otherwise, I don't see any reason to hurry them along for my own amusement.

I'm talking about fixing details that don't need fixing and things that could be influenced by the pcs and therefore shouldn't be fixed. Things that can be fixed are things that are outside of the pc's influence.

There are many things that can be, and often quite dramatically are, influenced by the players and their characters; that doesn't mean they can change everything at any time.

[T]he starting point of my last campaign was that an unknown force had eradicated two nearby villages. It wasn't until much later in the campaign that I actually decided who had done it. And it wasn't even really my decision: It was my players' actions in a particular adventure that decided it: They entered an alliance with a monstrous faction, so that faction's enemies were revealed as the 'evil guys' who were responsible for everything.

It's like Schrödinger's kitten: I don't decide if the cat is dead or not until my players decide to open the box!

I do my best to avoid using the word 'hate' to describe anything related to something as banal as gaming, but there's probably nothing I dislike more profoundly than this approach to roleplaying games. If I did hate anything in gaming, this would be it.

Likewise I never use fixed timelines: What's the point of deciding that after 20 days X will happen? Isn't it preferable to let X happen when it has the best dramatic effect?

Sometimes the best dramatic effect is achieved by an actual race against the clock.

The Shaman posting that map of Paris was quite revealing for me: I'm taking every bet that this map was no longer accurate the moment it was finished (and that's assuming it ever was accurate in the first place)!

I've been able to use contemporary maps of Paris to locate features in the 1660s map, and vice-versa. It's actually quite remarkable how accurate this map, or the Cassini maps of France from the mid-1700s when overlaid on GoogleMaps, are even today.

Speaking as a geography student who took every cartography class my university offered, then produced maps and managed geographic databases professionally, I think you're wrong.

Saying 'there is no route' because the map doesn't show one strikes me as ludicrous:
Even today, where everyone is using GPS, people can get utterly lost, drive into rivers and generally find it impossible to find the shortest (let alone fastest) route from A to B. Why is that? It's because maps aren't reliable and become obsolete after a (relatively) short time.

And yet people also navigate by plane and boat across empty oceans to tiny islands, or hike through wildernesses without trails and arrive at their exact destinations.

The only thing you've demonstrated is that some people don't know how to read maps.

I'm not expecting to convince you of anything. I'm not even saying my approach is better than any other. I just found that it's the approach that works best for me and my players at this point in time.

Horses for courses, as always.

 

[Janx]

There is no shorter/faster route from point A to point B in the city than the one currently being taken by the NPC because that NPC already went out and checked it/timed it/engineered it to be so for a particular reason (like a thief fleeing a bank job knowing he'll be pursued).

To which I might run that as the NPC took 20 to plan the route weeks in advance. He's 3 levels higher than the PCs and has a high whatever attrb applies so he gets + 4. And he max ranks it. So he gets Level + 3 +4 +20 as his skill check.

Truth be told, I won't even think of these details (well, now that this thread came up, maybe...). But when the PCs say, "I know this city pretty well, chances are I know a shortcut to Point B".

So, with that silly math in place, I can determine the answer when the PCs try. Since the PCs are lower level, the best they can probably 3 points less than the NPC (because he is 3 levels higher).

it should also be noted, in order to give my NPC the ability to know the city so well, I would have had to spend skill point on those skills, instead of other skills. Technically, that's the trade-off price my NPC has to pay to get "best routing" ability.

Going back to Imaro's other points, about the pit trap, and sandtraps, etc.

Obviously, I think resolving the route determination is different than the GM deciding if there's a pit in the room. Umbran had some good points about the difference. The route is an event and idea. The pit is a concrete attribute of the room.

I think that the actuality of the route is always held in an abstract state in the GM's mind, whereas the pit trap is right there on the map. It's a fuzzy thing.

Now Imaro mentioned something about sandboxes and not changing the notes on what's written down. That might shape thinking as one is reluctant to change what is written down.

I actually consider writing certain things down to be a railroading risk. The worse being, "The NPC captures the party at Location A and brings them to Location B" This may cause the GM to reject any valid reasons the capture should fail, in order to force sticking to the notes.

As such, I advise documenting places (the maps, etc) and NPCs (monsters, stat blocks, inventory, dispositions and goals).

From there, as GM, I am free to move the NPCs around because they are mobile entities pursuing their own goals and intersecting with the PCs as it makes sense.

If I was planning a murder mystery, I may have to plan some past events (the villain murdered the mayor) and some future events (the villain will try to murder a 2nd victim the next night). But I try to not write anything as absolute, and if I do, I try to remember that I really meant "the NPC will TRY to do that."

Because all sorts of things could happen before that event to change what's really going to happen.

Take Shaman's map. Going from the south side to the north side, has 3 bridges as valid routes. If the PCs through some goofiness blow up 2 of the bridges, the NPCs planned route MAY be foiled. All sorts of things would have to be reconsidered about what the NPC knows (did his route involve a blown up bridge, does he know, is his new route actually good and still beat the PCs).

I don't know what an exploration sandbox GM does. Since most of his notes may be locational (the dungeon map is this, and an Orc is in Room 1A), then he may not need to change anything. Unless he rules that the monsters in rooms 2-3 hear the ruckus in Room 1A and prepare to defend the corridor form intruders.

 

[MarkB]

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.

Whilst I agree that it's possible for an NPC to be taking the most direct route, with no shorter route available regardless of check result, I have to say that the above strikes me as a particularly bad piece of encounter design.

When a character makes a knowledge check to find out whether there's a shorter route to take, and upon rolling high enough gets a definitive "no" as the answer, this should most definitely not count as a failure in a skill challenge. The character has just greatly benefited the party's route-planning by confirming that the road ahead of them is the fastest one available, saving them time they might otherwise have wasted trying to take alternative routes and allowing them to proceed in the correct direction immediately.

At the very least, it should be a neutral "no-success-or-failure" roll that grant s a bonus to subsequent rolls. Personally, I'd count it as a success.

 

[Imaro]

Whilst I agree that it's possible for an NPC to be taking the most direct route, with no shorter route available regardless of check result, I have to say that the above strikes me as a particularly bad piece of encounter design.

I guess our definitions of good and bad differ then, I can live with that.

When a character makes a knowledge check to find out whether there's a shorter route to take, and upon rolling high enough gets a definitive "no" as the answer, this should most definitely not count as a failure in a skill challenge. The character has just greatly benefited the party's route-planning by confirming that the road ahead of them is the fastest one available, saving them time they might otherwise have wasted trying to take alternative routes and allowing them to proceed in the correct direction immediately.

Did you consider the time (in the middle of a high speed chase) it would take for the player to confirm this? If the rest of the characters are waiting for him to locate a better route to take, and there isn't one, then they are wasting time and the villain is getting closer to his goal... even if it's just him going "uhm...ok...wait let me think guys...ok, I'm positive he's taking the shortest route... leyt's get him guys!!". This happens as a setback in movies and literature all the time.

At the very least, it should be a neutral "no-success-or-failure" roll that grant s a bonus to subsequent rolls. Personally, I'd count it as a success.

At the very least (outside of your own preferences) it shouldn't. Again it takes time effort and energy to try and locate a shorter route...

EDIT: Ultimately I think you, like others in this thread are missing the point that I want a complication (not the possibility of a complication or absence of a complication) in this skill challenge and I have set it up that way knowingly to provide a more intense and challenging encounter for my players... yet you all seem intent on neutralizing it in some way, when that is definitely not the result I am looking for. Imo, it is only bad design if it is ...

1. Not fun for the players
2. Not challenging enough for the players (a snoozefest)

You haven't proven that either of these is necessarily the case so how can you declare it a bad encounter?