Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5722845" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I guess that's the thing. Once I have a map, I introduce it to the group, and it's now part of the setting, and part of the world (and part of the fiction). I don't have any private maps. I've used one, but only once, and it was years ago. The rest I just wing.I've read that report, and I definitely think that what you've described and run for your players was a form of player narrative control.Couldn't XP. I'm glad there's no hard feelings <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, much as an "autowin" for a PC would be okay in my mind, if the circumstances warranted it. For example, if they saw the NPC at the top of a 100 ft. cliff, and he noticed them, a chase might begin. Assuming the PCs have no quick route up, they'd need to climb. Assuming a successful climb, he's probably had some time to start fleeing. If he had a horse on top of the cliff, he'll have an incredibly sizable lead by the time they reach the top. Even if the players are invested in catching him, I won't say, "no, he didn't flee on horseback" for some reason. If he's out of range by the time they reach the top, it's a "too bad" situation for them. I won't suddenly change the fact that he has a horse up there just because they didn't see it.Just my play style. On the flip side, if it was reversed, the PCs would basically get away without rolls, too.Just about, yes.Well, what I don't like about that approach (for my group) is that it makes certain highly competent individuals less competent on a poor roll or against another highly competent opponent. For example:(1) Take the villain, who has a Streetwise of +20. He's incredibly competent. However, the party Thief (or whoever) also has +20. This means that should both make a check, if the Thief wins, he has the advantage, and if the villain wins, he has the advantage instead. Both are incredibly plausible.(2) Take the villain, who has a Streetwise of +20. He's incredibly competent. However, the party Thief (or whoever) has a Streetwise of +13. This means that should both make a check, if the Thief wins, he has the advantage, and if the villain wins, he has the advantage instead. Both are plausible, but the Thief having the advantage is decidedly less so.Where I think the discrepancy comes in is that (from my understanding) 4e is less concerned about what the villain's Streetwise check is, as it doesn't relate to combat. In such a situation, the PCs are rolling against a static DC (as set by the skill challenge), and the competence of the villain only factors in in a very subjective way (scaling DCs, of which you might say the DC is "hard" if you picture the villain with a good Streetwise).What this does do, in my mind, is make NPC competency dependent on PC competency in a very subjective way. The PCs, by virtue of high rolls, can make NPCs less competent than I would expect them to be. While the skill challenge can be adjusted for to some extent (by setting the DC to "hard"), it makes a little less sense to me since when the NPC is alone, his Streetwise modifier is around +20 (which should make him very, very competent). It seems like his competency hiccups a little bit when the PCs confront him, and that throws off internal consistency (in my mind, at least).Just my thoughts on it. It's definitely not wrong in my opinion to play with a narrative bent. It's good fun in my M&M game one-shots, so I can attest to that. I just wouldn't want it in a prolonged campaign, but that's just my taste. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Thus, my statement:So, I don't assume that a roll is always necessary. For example, if the location someone is headed to is across the street, I don't think anyone would require a roll if people knew where it was. Likewise, if the road you're currently on leads to the castle (it's the main road in the city), I'm not going to make a roll happen to see if it's the most direct route. It is.This is taking away competency from an NPC through PC competence, and that's a subjective approach that my group doesn't appreciate, as it places "hiccups" in the internal consistency of the world. To us, at least. No real judgments from me on it, other than what works for my group.I agree, and that's why I'd prefer an unopposed skill check from each party.I feel unopposed (and skill challengleess) checks cover this adequately.It might be. That's what the unopposed Streetwise, Knowledge (local), or whatever is for.Yep, I totally agree.I'm pretty sure I covered this both before this reply, and in it.Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before, too. I think your post is mostly agreeing with me? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Between this post and a previous reply, I hope this clears it up:As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Two problems with this:(1) I was using the example in the original post. In the original post, it was declared that the NPC had the most direct route, and that adding a shortcut would effectively be changing the setting. It does not say how the NPC knew this route, so I did not assume that the NPC had skipped rolls.(2) I've stated specifically that if they pursue him, the chase would likely come down to a set of rolls to see if they catch him, which is far from "the best the PCs can do is to keep the pace with the NPC." In fact, it's rather against what I've indicated in this thread.See, this is true, but I have no idea where you're getting this assumption from. It sounds like a simple misunderstanding.Good post. I wouldn't consider player improvisation "player narrative control" but I'm very much on board with "if the player can realistically attempt something, he should be able to" and "the NPC shouldn't be able to auto-win and there's nothing you can do to stop it."Then again, I don't think anyone in the thread is supporting either of those ideas, and the fact that several people keep pressing those points as if it's the case if confusing to me. Either it's a fundamental breakdown in simple communication, or it's dishonest. I sincerely hope it's the former. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification