Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5726049" data-attributes="member: 48965">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?     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 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.  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.     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 don't see it... both are complications in an encounter.  Plain and simple.  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?  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.</blockquote>

Verification