Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Janx]

Just a random related idea on abstract shortcut determination.

First, get the distance of the practical street-level route. Ignoring undocumented alleys, shops, just going by the standard streets, what is the shortest route's length.

Let's say you get 12 blocks.

With a straight-edge, measure the actual distance between points A & B. This is presumaby how for away the target is if you could fly directly. It is ultimately the MINIMUM distance one could travel.


let's say you get 9 blocks.

A shortcut, if it exists, could range from 9 to 12 blocks. One could rule for simplicity that it is boolean (available and known) and it will reduce the distance by 1/2 of the difference. Basically the difference is 3 blocks, so you can shave 1.5 blocks off the trip by using the shortcut.

You could use some margin of success rule on the roll to determine a variable amount of shortcut benefit. However, I doubt any shortcut can truly reduce a route to match the minimum as the crow flies (otherwise, you'd pretty much be flying anyway).

Under this consideration, a shortcut is just a less obvious path than the regularly used pathways.

Technically, the GM may need this info anyway, for plotting the NPC's estimated course, and IF he gets to use the shortcut, how much better is it, in an abstract sense.

 

[MarkB]

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?

If you're in a chase scene, one of the natural things to do is to see if you know a short cut. Making that natural thing something which not only fails to provide a benefit but actually automatically provides a hindrance if the players attempt it is most definitely un-fun for the player in question. They've done something that's inventive and smart and in-keeping with the tone of the encounter, and you've slapped them in the face with an automatic penalty.

Perhaps you can imagine that as being fun for a player, but I find it unlikely.

 

[Imaro]

If you're in a chase scene, one of the natural things to do is to see if you know a short cut. Making that natural thing something which not only fails to provide a benefit but actually automatically provides a hindrance if the players attempt it is most definitely un-fun for the player in question. They've done something that's inventive and smart and in-keeping with the tone of the encounter, and you've slapped them in the face with an automatic penalty.

Perhaps you can imagine that as being fun for a player, but I find it unlikely.

Failure in and of itself isn't fun for most players, I mean how many players think it's fun when they miss in combat? But missing adds to the overall fun in a combat.

In other words I'm not concerned with every roll of the die and accompanying result being a positive for the individual player...because I don't think that is what constitutes a fun encounter. I am more concerned with the overall encounter design being fun and exciting for the players through conflicts, complications, achievments and setbacks.

On another note, I don't find "look for a shortcut" to be very "inventive" or very "smart" (more like common and obvious) in a chase scene. However I will say that I agree that it is very much in keeping with the tone of the encounter. If anything I would say it's probably going to be the most commonly used idea in chase scenes throughout the entire campaign... especially if it's set in a city the PC's know.

So this one time (where I have already stated I want a more challenging chase scene) that they can't locate a route and it's a failure because they spent time trying to locate one will probably be interesting due to it's sheer novelty and exciting because it is an unexpected hindrance they now must overcome... while still leaving numerous options (except the most obvious) open for them to try. I'm sorry that you can't see how this encounter might be fun for some... but that doesn't make it so. There are people who enjoy overcoming adversity in the game, and feel like heroes do often have the odds stacked against them but persevere. It's a playstyle choice and with the already low DC's of skill challenges when level appropriate compared to the skill bonuses I have seen PC's with... I still don't think this challenge would be particularly hard to beat, even if they get that setback. Then again tastes vary and if "locating a shortcut" in the city for the umpteenth time that you've run a chase scene there over 20 or more levels is your idea of fun then more power to you.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Your method is only 'superior' if you believe it is good to make an option impossible.

Here's a completely different example that illustrates why I feel that what you call 'superior' is actually 'inferior':
One of the design decisions in 4e was to radically reduce the number of immunities for monsters. They decided that backstab works on undead, and fire elementals can be harmed by fire magic.

I'm pretty sure at this point that you feel this was a terrible decision, while I happen to think it's an excellent way to make sure a pc isn't completely useless in an encounter because of the character archetype she chose (a rogue, or a fire mage)

How many reports have you read from rogue players that enjoyed the 3e 'Age of Wyrms' AP? Thought so!

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...

Of course I know that - I'm not new to this board and neither is this discussion
And it's always the same names that show up on one side of the fence! My view is just as immutable as yours: It cannot be unsatisfying if the players never know! The illusion of choice is just as satisfying as a real choice (off-topic aside: actually science tells us exactly that: choice _is_ an illusion!).

"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..."

This isn't about solving a mystery. That's what detective novels are about. My campaign was about saving the world from an evil force. This is D&D after all

See, if I made up a mystery story and decided it's to be about a murder and then decide who was the murderer, his motive and modus operandi and the hints that are there to be found, then everything has been decided beforehand by me.

All that the players get to do is to 'replay' the scenario I had in mind when I created the mystery story. They have to follow the breadcrumbs I placed for them, otherwise they won't solve the story.

There's a very real possibility that the scenario I had in mind is flawed: The motive isn't as compelling as I thought, some other npc would have had an even better motive, the hints aren't as clear as they could be, or worst of all: the scenario could never have happened the way I imagined because I overlooked some detail!

Now what to do? How do I 'fix' my scenario?

If I'm married to my initial idea, the players will simply never solve the mystery. And this isn't because they didn't have the right idea, but because _I_ didn't have the right idea!

What I'm doing is allowing for the chance that I'm not always right.

If I give my players narrative freedom, _they_ decide what the scenario is. Everything can happen based on the choices they make and the theories they develop. Note that this doesn't mean, they will automatically 'solve' every 'mystery': If they fail to come up with a compelling solution, they won't.

How can this not be a 'superior' approach, if, after play, I read my players' adventuring journal and find that the story it tells is much better than what I had originally in mind?

Have you ever wondered why authors always have someone who 'proof-reads' their stuff or even post whole chapters on the internet before publishing a book?
It's because they realize that no matter how great their ideas might seem to themselves, they'll get valuable feedback that helps them to write an even better story.

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.

It 'might' get them over the gap, if those skills result in the gap being closed. Those skills might also help them to make the task of crossing the gap easier.

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.

Not necessarily. If my players spend an hour trying to solve a puzzle I invented to unlock a magical door ((because I decided beforehand that solving the puzzle is required) all it shows is that they're really, really interested in getting through that door and not that they're having fun solving puzzles.

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.

I know

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

Well, you know, as it happens, one of my players lives in a new housing area that is not on any GPS map yet. I think that demonstrates quite well that no matter how good you are at reading maps, sometimes it won't help you one bit

And another fun fact: The place I work has been entered incorrectly in electronic maps. If you search it on Google Maps using the correct address, you'll end up in the wrong place!

Naturally, the error was reported but even after more than one year, it has not been corrected. You can find the correct route on our website, but I guess you can imagine how many of our visitors call us asking for directions because they trusted their GPS

 

[Janx]

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.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.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.

I'm never going to suggest that skill checks can override what the map actually says, assuming the map is accurate (represents the GMs current view of the world, rather than a paper drawn by a drunk and sold to a PC).

So if the map says you gotta cross the Pont-Neuf to get to the Louvre, I'm not arguing with that.

But if part of the route has me going around a city block or two that in reality represents a cluster of buildings with gaps and alleys that my PC could ACTUALLY go through, that is the fuzziness I speak of that the skill check may represent.

I look at Shaman's map, and see all sorts of room for shortcuts. But I also see 3 bridges connecting the north and south parts of the city. Those are static, detailed, defined, immobile features of the map.

To Imaro's interest in making complications in the chase that MarkB counters. I think there's another way use the mechanism to still yield complications.

Let's say as a GM we did plan a chase scene. Pretty much in the vein of how I described it before. The NPC is wimpy and will run to his escape portal at Point B. The PCs somehow already know about Point B, as the confront him at Point A. So when the PCs get to Point A and confront, off NPC goes and the chase is on.

for any character going to Point B, we know one of the following could happen:

1. they go the wrong way/get lost
2. they go an inefficient way/route congestion
3. they go a good way
4. they take a shortcut

The NPC could do this, and the PCs could do this. We might base it on a skill check, or let the players point it out on the map.

If they point it out on the map, odds are good option 1 will never happen. But then, Option 1 isn't very fun anyway, unless a joke is made of it.

The difference between 2 and 3 could simply be failed skill rolls trying to run through traffic.

Option 4 being a shortcut, a path less traveled does not mean it is easy. Simply that it shaves off distance. In fact, it probably involves tighter spaces, and obstacles. Because it is utilizing areas that are not regularly used for a reason.

If the NPC has such a lead that his success at getting to point B is guaranteed, in which case, time is no longer the essence for the PCs as they will never beat him, thus need never try through application of the rules.

Put another way, if you make me roll the dice a whole bunch and regardless of what level I am or how I roll, I can never beat the NPC, you have wasted my time and could have simply narrated it.

Therefore, anything the PCs go through, should probably be benchmarked against the NPC's run through the gamut. the gist is, You have a race, you better know how fast the NPC is/when he will get to Point B so as to determine if/when the PCs can beat him there.

I'm not sure I care if you roll the NPC's skill checks or just do some basic math and take note that "he runs 10.5 blocks in 5 rounds to Point B".

With this in place, you can run my PC across the city to see if I can beat his time or not.

In any event, when the PCs take off running, be it the street route or the shortcut, I suspect both will have skill checks, perhaps of differing type, to reflect the difference in the path choice.

But taking the shortcut need not be a gimme.

Just make sure its not a waste of my time for an outcome I cannot change.

 

[Janx]

As an addendum to this statement: "Put another way, if you make me roll the dice a whole bunch and regardless of what level I am or how I roll, I can never beat the NPC, you have wasted my time and could have simply narrated it."

If the NPC could move 40 and the party only moves 30. Barring any extra opportunities to boost our speed or slow his speed, the NPC reaching the goal first is a foregone conclusion.

don't waste my time making me roll skill checks to Run and Dodge traffic so you can tell me "you reach Point B just moments too late. the NPC has beaten you there."

One could argue that the rolls represent how many rounds behind are the PCs, but the GM could just as soon narrate that, as well. Especially if the time gap is large enough that nothing could be impacted.

If our goal is to stop the NPC from entering the Escape Portal at Point B which only takes him 1 round to use when he arrives, and we can at best arrive 5 rounds later than he, this is that don't waste my time situation.

A case may be argued of GMing style on whether the PCs should have had a chance to beat him or not. I think there are both style and situational factors at play.

Situationally, the NPC may out-level/out-plan me and thus there is no way I can win. That sucks. Don't waste my time with busy work to reach that conclusion. I would rather spend my time figuring out how to level the playing field than spend an hour running a race I can't win.

Style-wise, the GM may have a specific outcome in mind in order to drive a story point. This is an edgier reason.

I like me some story, but I do so by making moments and motivations more personal and dramatic, not by forcing event outcomes on players. I might force a situation, "hey, the bad guy is getting away!" but I prefer the outcome to surprise me. I collide the PCs with NPCs in order to give the PCs a chance to beat them.

If I have a situation where it's a "duh! of course the bad guy will win" I reconsider the whole setup, because that doesn't seem like a situation the players will pursue (few people attempt to do things they KNOW they will fail at, instead seeking a different approach or different activity).

A sandbox GM is usually uninvested in the outcome. So to them, running the whole race as systematically as possible detaches them from the outcome and simulates "how it might work out". For them, a foregone conclusion of bad guy wins is only because the PCs planned poorly or over-reached and attacked a foe with better stats.

 

[Imaro]

Your method is only 'superior' if you believe it is good to make an option impossible.

I've already stated that I believe at times it is...

Here's a completely different example that illustrates why I feel that what you call 'superior' is actually 'inferior':
One of the design decisions in 4e was to radically reduce the number of immunities for monsters. They decided that backstab works on undead, and fire elementals can be harmed by fire magic.

I'm pretty sure at this point that you feel this was a terrible decision, while I happen to think it's an excellent way to make sure a pc isn't completely useless in an encounter because of the character archetype she chose (a rogue, or a fire mage)

How many reports have you read from rogue players that enjoyed the 3e 'Age of Wyrms' AP? Thought so!

And yet, surprisingly enough there are players that still play 3.0/3.5/PF/etc. with those same rogues... so apparently for some/many your preference is inferior, perhaps they enjoy the intrinsic challenge that limited options in certain situations present. For the purposes of me introducing a complication into an encounter... again your preferences are inferior since they only allow for the possibility that a complication might be introduced.

On another note... how does removing a single non-class specific option from one skill challenge in one game of an entire campaign in any way equate to the broad immunities in certain monsters? Again with the extremes huh?

Of course I know that - I'm not new to this board and neither is this discussion
And it's always the same names that show up on one side of the fence! My view is just as immutable as yours: It cannot be unsatisfying if the players never know! The illusion of choice is just as satisfying as a real choice (off-topic aside: actually science tells us exactly that: choice _is_ an illusion!).

Well since you know and understand it's a preference vs. objective thing... I really don't understand what you are arguing for?

This isn't about solving a mystery. That's what detective novels are about. My campaign was about saving the world from an evil force. This is D&D after all

See, if I made up a mystery story and decided it's to be about a murder and then decide who was the murderer, his motive and modus operandi and the hints that are there to be found, then everything has been decided beforehand by me.

All that the players get to do is to 'replay' the scenario I had in mind when I created the mystery story. They have to follow the breadcrumbs I placed for them, otherwise they won't solve the story.

Wrong... just wrong. Do you know how many hints the PC's will need before they figure out who did it? You didn't specify the NPC's they can talk to either. Can you account for every mode of investigation they will use to garner the clues?

No, you have, like my example earlier, only defined a part of the bigger collaborative effort. Again you're jumping from an NPC murderer and the setting up of clues to knowing exactly how the adventure will run and how the PC's will act... that assumption makes absolutely no sense.

There's a very real possibility that the scenario I had in mind is flawed: The motive isn't as compelling as I thought, some other npc would have had an even better motive, the hints aren't as clear as they could be, or worst of all: the scenario could never have happened the way I imagined because I overlooked some detail!

Couldn't this happen if you decide to just make it all up at some point in the adventure... in fact with less time to think everything through I would say it's more likely to happen with your preferred method than in the method that plans things out beforehand.

Now what to do? How do I 'fix' my scenario?

Well knowing your views I would assume you would use player narrative control and let your PC's fix everything. If I feel it's the right tool for what I am trying to accomplish I would too. But that in no way means it is the correct tool for every campaign/DM/playstyle/player/etc. Of course you know this, as you stated earlier, so it's no need for me to go into depth.

If I'm married to my initial idea, the players will simply never solve the mystery. And this isn't because they didn't have the right idea, but because _I_ didn't have the right idea!

What I'm doing is allowing for the chance that I'm not always right.

If I give my players narrative freedom, _they_ decide what the scenario is. Everything can happen based on the choices they make and the theories they develop. Note that this doesn't mean, they will automatically 'solve' every 'mystery': If they fail to come up with a compelling solution, they won't.

How can this not be a 'superior' approach, if, after play, I read my players' adventuring journal and find that the story it tells is much better than what I had originally in mind?

Really you are off on a tangent that is so far from the intial premise of a complication in an encounter that I'm not even sure what you're point is. How do you go from adding the complication of their being no shortest route in a single encounter to an entire adventure written out as a railroad with no other option for the PC's but to do what the DM has predicted they do. Honestly this is getting absurd and I'm not sure if you keep trying to strengthen your position with these extremes because you can't without them or you are unaware that you are doing it... but it makes discussion hard since I'm not advocating extremes for either playstyle but for a GM using either tool at the right time to produce a better game. If that's always letting your players have narrative control for you, great. But I don't think one size fits everyone.

Touching on another of your points...I mean honestly, you let your players basically write the scenarios, decide the events and solve them but only if it meets your standard of compelling? So they get to create but only if what they create meets your standard of approval... so you are eliminating options just in the moment. That doesn't seem like the unbridled freedom you seemed to be advocating.

Have you ever wondered why authors always have someone who 'proof-reads' their stuff or even post whole chapters on the internet before publishing a book?
It's because they realize that no matter how great their ideas might seem to themselves, they'll get valuable feedback that helps them to write an even better story.

Wait...I thought we were playing a game called D&D... so now we're all authors writing a story? Huh, go figure?

On another note... all feedback isn't helpful and you keep glossing over the fact that you are still arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't possible by whether it's "compelling" (whatever that means)to you or not and that your whole argument seems based on taking everything to extremes which I haven't seen anyone but you arguing for.

 

[The Shaman]

It 'might' get them over the gap, if those skills result in the gap being closed. Those skills might also help them to make the task of crossing the gap easier.

I already adderessed that - you may be able to Seduce someone who can help you rig a temporary bridge, but you cannot Seduce your way across thin air.

That depends, of course, on the availability of someone with the appropriate skills and materials to Seduce. Absent that, your character's Seduction skill is as useful as the ability to speak Italian.

All skills are not equally applicable to every task.

If my players spend an hour trying to solve a puzzle I invented to unlock a magical door ((because I decided beforehand that solving the puzzle is required) all it shows is that they're really, really interested in getting through that door and not that they're having fun solving puzzles.

Presumably if you included the puzzle in the first place, it's because you know that your group enjoys puzzles as part of their roleplaying game, and therefore spending an hour solving it is part of the fun.

Well, you know, as it happens, one of my players lives in a new housing area that is not on any GPS map yet. I think that demonstrates quite well that no matter how good you are at reading maps, sometimes it won't help you one bit

No, it means you're using the wrong map for the task.

 

[pemerton]

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

Ideally, for me, the relationship between the shared fiction and the game's action resolution mechanics would be such that the mechanical implementation of cool ideas would be incapable of trivialising the encounter.

This is what I take to be the point of 4e's "X successes before 3 failures" skill challenge rules.

 

[Imaro]

Ideally, for me, the relationship between the shared fiction and the game's action resolution mechanics would be such that the mechanical implementation of cool ideas would be incapable of trivialising the encounter.

This is what I take to be the point of 4e's "X successes before 3 failures" skill challenge rules.

You're assuming he plays 4e. You're also assuming that the mechanic he would use if he did is a skill challenge as opposed to an oopposed check or a simple skill check.