# Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?



## Mort (Oct 30, 2011)

In another thread (which I won't link to because it's really, really long and not on this topic) I posted the following:



Mort said:


> I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.
> 
> The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."
> 
> ...





One of the reponses I received was the following:



JamesonCourage said:


> See, this is putting story ahead of setting, which is where I object, because it runs the risk of immersion being lost. Now, you can definitely keep players immersed while doing it, but I think it's akin to what certain posters have labeled "illusionism", which there's an objection to. I mean, you like that style of play, and a lot of other people do, too.
> 
> However, if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them (this is close to how I'd feel as GM). And, I'd personally feel the need to disclose my gaming style to the group, as I find establishing the social contract very important. They should know what to expect out of me, and what to expect out of the game. We've specifically voiced that we wouldn't like the style you've described in the game, so changing it would be a major 180 on them.
> 
> Again, it's just preference. As always, play what you like




This surprised me a bit as I've not yet had a negative response to giving some narrative control to the players (in fact I would have to describe response as overwhelmingly positive). That said, I have a pretty limited sample as I don't really have time to DM outside of my regular group.

I will also say that I disagree that story is being put ahead of setting here as giving narrative control to players can still easily place setting first.

Anyway I thought this could really use it's own thread as I find it a very interesting topic.

Thoughts?


----------



## Nagol (Oct 30, 2011)

As a player, if I ask if I know of a faster route, I'm asking if I know -- not if I can invent one.  Sometimes such things will exist -- if the BBEG is traveling by a meandering main road, a congested route, or at a limited speed to avoid attracting legal attention, for examples.  Other times, the route between A and B is straight and there is nothing better to try.

Generally, I prefer to play my character in a seeming rational and deterministic world.  I want to express change in that world through character actions not through authorial control.  Any long term satisfaction I get from a game comes from my actions succesfully shaping that world from within.

In many ways, I have the same attitude towards player narrative control as I do DM fudging.  At its best, authorial control can lead to more exciting play as the play group sets up the situations as just hit/barely missed as it feels most satisfying, but I find it undercuts any feeling of accomplishment or longer term enjoyment I have in a game.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2011)

But, the thing is Nagol, it's extremely unlikely the DM will actually have the detail to know the definitive answer to that question.  Unless you've mapped your city down to a full zoom Google Maps level, it's virtually impossible to answer that question.

After all, even if you have the major and minor routes on your map, it's unlikely you have all alleyways and whatnot as well.  

So, the player asks, "Do I know of a faster way?"

The DM rolls some dice (Kn Local or Streetwise, or whatever your system of choice uses) and says, "Yes, you know a faster way."

Have you been cheated in any way when the DM made the determination based on your rolls?


----------



## Mort (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> As a player, if I ask if I know of a faster route, I'm asking if I know -- not if I can invent one.  Sometimes such things will exist -- if the BBEG is traveling by a meandering main road, a congested route, or at a limited speed to avoid attracting legal attention, for examples.  Other times, the route between A and B is straight and there is nothing better to try.
> 
> Generally, I prefer to play my character in a seeming rational and deterministic world.  I want to express change in that world through character actions not through authorial control.  Any long term satisfaction I get from a game comes from my actions succesfully shaping that world from within.
> 
> In many ways, I have the same attitude towards player narrative control as I do DM fudging.  At its best, authorial control can lead to more exciting play as the play group sets up the situations as just hit/barely missed as it feels most satisfying, but I find it undercuts any feeling of accomplishment or longer term enjoyment I have in a game.




Interesting.

[edit: Hussar beat me to the punch! I'd give experience but have to spread some more around.)

I don't equate narrative control to DM fudging though. DM fudging is generaly = take a result that already happened (ie a die roll or a HP total) and change it (for the better or worse of the players). This can certainly make a player feel cheated as now the DM essentially told them what happened, as opposed to the player acomplishing it.

Player narrative control is quite different (almost opposite in fact). The *player* is telling the DM in some way that his character through familiarity with the actual setting knows something the DM has not necessarily planned for or already put in (thus differentiating it from an already determined result). This is still accomplished through mechanics (a geography roll, a streetwise roll, etc.) but success indicates the character is aware of a previously unexposed aspect of the setting. The only (though possible big) difference is that the unexposed aspect is at the player's behest not the DMs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm with Nagol. As a player in a traditional rpg I am there to play my character and exert my influence on the setting _from within that chosen role. _If I was interested in authorial control I would write my own story instead of playing a game. 

In this situation what has transpired to make the PC's believe that the villian isn't very familliar with the city? 

If the character in question had relevant knowledge about the city then it certainly could influence the situation but that knowledge would first exist as an in-game character resourse.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 30, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, the thing is Nagol, it's extremely unlikely the DM will actually have the detail to know the definitive answer to that question.  Unless you've mapped your city down to a full zoom Google Maps level, it's virtually impossible to answer that question.
> 
> After all, even if you have the major and minor routes on your map, it's unlikely you have all alleyways and whatnot as well.
> 
> ...




In the original scenario, the DM looked down at is map and saw that there wasn't a faster route.

You don't need a full map zoom to know, really.  Alleyways as side passages by and large are not faster unless there are extenuating circumstances -- like a meandering road when a straighter path is possible, heavy congestion on the path chosen, or a limt to speed on the path chosen that is possible to violate elsewhere.  In fact, you are more likely to get stalled in narrow confines of the alley.

Now it may be a faster route does exist and the DM glancing down at the map sees the villain's route goes through Princes' Square and that hosts a farmers' market.  Asking for a Knowledge:Local to suggest going around that block is fine.

Now it may be the case that the chase is impromptu and the DM doesn't have some deterministic path already chosen for the villain or even a map to the area.  In that case, I prefer a random check to determine the intial set up and competing Knowledge:Local rolls to evade obstacles, if they exist.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 30, 2011)

Mort said:


> Interesting.
> 
> [edit: Hussar beat me to the punch! I'd give experience but have to spread some more around.)
> 
> ...




The player is not telling the DM that his character knows something the DM thought he didn't; the player is changing the world as the DM knows it.

Was there a shorter route?  No.  Is there a shorter route now? Yes.

Should that shorter route continue to exist in the future? Yes.

Could that shorter route have had an impact on campaign play in the past? Potentially.

Who has to track these effects?  The DM.  Now let's suppose that the PCs are engaged in a friendly rivalry to catch the villain that the DM thought was fleeing by the most direct route.

Player 1: Do I know a better route?  I roll a 21!
DM: Yes, you'll catch him at...
Player 2: Wait a minute! I know this city better than him  I roll a 25!
DM: OK you know an even better route.  You'll catch him at...
Player 3:  Hey wait a minute!  Remember 13 sessions ago when I was fleeing from the ragamuffins! I found a terrific route out of here, I rolled somewhere in the mid-30s!.

How many better routes can exist?  How long do they continue to exist?  Why didn't the villain traveling by the most direct route take them?


----------



## Mort (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> In the original scenario, the DM looked down at is map and saw that there wasn't a faster route.
> 
> You don't need a full map zoom to know, really.  Alleyways as side passages by and large are not faster unless there are extenuating circumstances -- like a meandering road when a straighter path is possible, heavy congestion on the path chosen, or a limt to speed on the path chosen that is possible to violate elsewhere.  In fact, you are more likely to get stalled in narrow confines of the alley.




Maps are rarely (if ever) perfect and I do not believe they should be taken as gospel by the DM or the players except in rare circumstances.



Nagol said:


> Now it may be a faster route does exist and the DM glancing down at the map sees the villain's route goes through Princes' Square and that hosts a farmers' market.  Asking for a Knowledge:Local to suggest going around that block is fine.




Right! now the question of the thread - can the player (say with a high enough knowledge local that the DM imposes) Look at the DM and say "It's Tuesday, I happen to know that there is always a farmer's market along the villain's route on Tuesday!" In other words, Is it solely the DMs pervue or can the player step in?




Nagol said:


> Now it may be the case that the chase is impromptu and the DM doesn't have some deterministic path already chosen for the villain or even a map to the area.  In that case, I prefer a random check to determine the intial set up and competing Knowledge:Local rolls to evade obstacles, if they exist.




Another way to look at it - what's wrong with having an impromptu element (slightly subject to player control) in a larger majority of circumstances?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm all about giving the players narrative control and trying to reduce the power distance between DM and player.

The DM is responsible for staying true to the setting and maintaining verisimilitude, but I don't think this is usually that hard.

Personally, I'm a fan of the Cortex system (Serenity, BSG, etc.), which explicitly gives this sort of control to the players by letting them offer action points as a bribe to the DM in order for him to introduce favorable plot elements (and rewards the players with action points if they introduce new challenges for themselves).

In the above example, I think it's easy to imagine a way that the player's suggestion could be fruitful. Compare the player's knowledge to the villain's. There could be a hidden alleyway, a network of mages with teleportation portals, or a yearly parade that the villain didn't know would cross his path. Even to the extent that this seems narrativistic at the expense of simulation, who is to say that the DM's map is the best and most realistic reality you could be playing in? Having multiple sources of input into setting elements enhances verisimilitude in my mind, because the real world is not the product of a single mind. The DM's job is to, in a split second, judge the merits of such a suggestion from the player, and whether it seems purely self-serving for that player or whether it actually _makes sense_ that local knowledge could yield a better route. It's not an easy job, but that's why we get paid the big bucks.

Hey, wait a second...


----------



## Nagol (Oct 30, 2011)

And finally, I find it undercuts my feeling of accomplishment because it lets me sidestep the situations presented.

"Will my choices prevail in this situation?"

is under cut by

"How can I change this situation?"


----------



## Mort (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The player is not telling the DM that his character knows something the DM thought he didn't; the player is changing the world as the DM knows it.
> 
> Was there a shorter route?  No.  Is there a shorter route now? Yes.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure there is a problem in any of these circumstances. Even the last one as obviously, no one actually looked in the past because it had not come up. If it had come up in the past the DM could certainly rule that no route exists to maintain continuity. Though maybe the route is new, or the path is new, or the players know the city better now so really there is no conflict.



Nagol said:


> Who has to track these effects?  The DM.  Now let's suppose that the PCs are engaged in a friendly rivalry to catch the villain that the DM thought was fleeing by the most direct route.
> 
> Player 1: Do I know a better route?  I roll a 21!
> DM: Yes, you'll catch him at...
> ...




This is silly. The first player (who rolls the 21) knows the route. The second player (who rolled a 25) also knows the route - why does there have to be a different one?  I'm arguing for limited player narrative control over certain aspects of the setting - not drawing tunnels in the wall a la toon! 

Obviously DM judgment has to be at play here, but that's why there is a live DM sitting at the table! And before you argue slippery slope! Every DM judgment call is a potentially slippery slope - doesn't mean they should not be made.


----------



## Mort (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> And finally, I find it undercuts my feeling of accomplishment because it lets me sidestep the situations presented.
> 
> "Will my choices prevail in this situation?"
> 
> ...




I suppose that's the difference.

I believe the feeling of accomplishment is not only maintained but enhanced by giving the player a chance to contribute (even in some small way) both to the situation and the setting. In a sense the DM is saying you have choice A or B but I'm open to choice C if you can show me it's better.

That’s why I started the thread. Viewpoints other than your own can only enhance future play experience and help a lot in explaining and (hopefully) understanding other points of view even when they strongly disagree!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> And finally, I find it undercuts my feeling of accomplishment because it lets me sidestep the situations presented.
> 
> "Will my choices prevail in this situation?"
> 
> ...



Are you familiar with the Kobayashi Maru scenario? 



> Was there a shorter route? No. Is there a shorter route now? Yes.
> 
> Should that shorter route continue to exist in the future? Yes.
> 
> Could that shorter route have had an impact on campaign play in the past? Potentially



I don't think there is any route until the DM canonizes it by describing the terrain during play. And unless that description excludes all possible alternatives, there's still room for player suggestion.

Personally, I don't use maps much at all. I just improvise that sort of thing. To me, it makes little difference what the source of my ideas are during that improvisation, only that those ideas hold water.

It is fair to say that the DM has to internalize all this stuff and make sure it makes sense and doesn't change canon. I think that's pretty easy to do. If absolutely necessary, there's always retconning. TV shows do it, even good ones, so why not D&D?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 30, 2011)

Interesting topic mort. Generally I am not a fan of players having narrative cOntrol. I like a consistent and stable setting that is external to my character and see the GM's role as establishing this. However I also don't believe that rigid adherence to any gaming philosophy is more important than tailoring your approach to the preferences of the group.

I think the example you provided is a border case though ( it isn't really giving the player full narrative control (ie spending action points to change the available options). It sounds more like he is asking the GM if he can make a roll to find any shortcuts. It is a border case because this may well be a point when the GM would ad lib anyway. As a player I would prefer the GM first decide if there is a shortcut based on his existing knowledge of the city ( if it is reasonable he should conclude there is one). Then the player can roll to see if he finds it. I would want the existence of the shortcut to be a result of the roll though. I want that to be something beyond my control as player.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 30, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> It is fair to say that the DM has to internalize all this stuff and make sure it makes sense and doesn't change canon. I think that's pretty easy to do. If absolutely necessary, there's always retconning. TV shows do it, even good ones, so why not D&D?




Largely because TV shows (even good ones) are scripted stories. The events in a game are the the results of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 30, 2011)

By the way I think it is fine for players to give the GM advice or opinions asche is makingvthese decisions. If I am runnung a scenario in Rome and I hadn't considered a possible route, through something like a cryptoporticoe, and a player makes a compelling case for such a route existing in their location, it will definitely factor into my decision. But when my character can control setting material via mechanics, it kind of kills the reality of the setting for me.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Oct 30, 2011)

Mort, I think your instincts are great.

A city map is not a city. A city has street vendors, sewers, shops, houses, etc...

I think a question from a player like this is not only creative, it is totally reasonable. Often players pose questions to issues we have not even considered as DMs. If the rational answer to the question might be "yes", then a dice roll is certainly in order.

A response to the issue at hand concerning the chase might be:

"Hm... well, you know there are no alleys that cut through. The road he is on does wind a bit, and there is traffic in the street that he is bypassing. You could try to cut through one of the shops that you used to hang out in as a kid, go up the stairs, run along the rooftop, but there's no way down unless you find a soft landing..."

"I'm going for it!"

"You are able to get to the rooftop, and see him up ahead on the street. You've gained on him a bit, but he's still ahead"

"I'm running on the rooftop to catch up with him".

"You are able to run and catch up with him".

"is there anything up ahead I can jump down into.. a haywagon maybe?"

"just ahead there is a hay wagon"

"I'm going to jump in the hay wagon. Is there any way when I jump that I can gain an advantage on him?"

"Not really".

"I'm jumping"

"Roll to see if you land in the wagon.. easy roll... the wagon's pretty big and you aren't that far up"

*rolls" "I made it!"

"Ok.. now roll to see if you hit the pitchfork that was in the wagon"

"Arrrrggggg!"

*rolls "Missed it! I'm grabbing the pitchfork and trying to get out in front of him and stop him!"


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Largely because TV shows (even good ones) are scripted stories. The events in a game are the the results of play.



There's different ways of doing this, but I base my D&D to some extent on Battlestar Galactica, which has a great deal of podcasts and other material out there describing its creative process.

The show had a script, sure, and was expected to shoot that script, but directors and actors were also expected to make creative choices on the set and frequently did. The showrunner would choose what made it to the screen and change future scripts if necessary. There were certainly retcons in the series, but its continuity was a strong point.

I think of D&D very similarly. I have moments in my head before the game, but I'll go where events lead. In both cases there's a plan, but that plan is put in to practice in real time combining choices from all the participants.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Oct 30, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> There's different ways of doing this, but I base my D&D to some extent on Battlestar Galactica, which has a great deal of podcasts and other material out there describing its creative process.
> 
> The show had a script, sure, and was expected to shoot that script, but directors and actors were also expected to make creative choices on the set and frequently did. The showrunner would choose what made it to the screen and change future scripts if necessary. There were certainly retcons in the series, but its continuity was a strong point.
> 
> I think of D&D very similarly. I have moments in my head before the game, but I'll go where events lead. In both cases there's a plan, but that plan is put in to practice in real time combining choices from all the participants.




This is a great example! I think the DM has two roles, one as director, and one as showrunner.

DM as director doesn't care about long story arcs. The players have total control over events during a session, and can muck up any storyline.

The DM as showrunner has to re-evaluate the campaign world at the end of a session, and alter the course of long story arcs based on the results of the gaming session.

During the session, the showrunner is there, but should not interfere unless a player's action will make life a nightmare for the DM.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2011)

The same split role applies to players (and actors) I think.

The player is supposed to represent his character's perspective, but also to make the game enjoyable for all. (Just as an actor has to play his character, but also make sure the artistic piece as a whole is entertaining and fulfilling).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The player is not telling the DM that his character knows something the DM thought he didn't; the player is changing the world as the DM knows it.
> 
> Was there a shorter route?  No.  Is there a shorter route now? Yes.
> 
> ...




I don't see it that way at all.


Was there a shorter route?  Not on the map.  

Is there a shorter route now? Still not on the map, but if the check is high enough why shouldn't the player know a secret shortcut?


In my opinion, it isn't even really about letting players run the narrative.  It's about using the dice the way the dice have always been used; to resolve an uncertain situation.

If there is literally no logical means for the players to reach the villain's destination before he did, I'd just say no.  The fastest possible route is the fastest.  However, unless I'm detailing a simplistic cavern or some such, I probably don't have the means to make such a determination without being arbitrary.

A map is static, and only good within a limited scope of detail.  Perhaps the city streets are particularly crowded this day, or there's been a carriage accident on that road, and the PC knows a rooftop or sewer route that allows them to bypass traffic.  If the villian's path includes turns, perhaps the PC knows a route cutting through shops and private residences that allows them to travel in a straight line.  I'd probably require additional checks (like athletics to vault a fence) in the latter case, as obstacles might certainly slow them down as well.  Just because you know a potentially faster route doesn't mean you necessarily have the means to take advantage of it.

Simulation is only an approximation.  Unless you've determined every event that happens in a city, and every location of every person within that city at every moment, I think it's perfectly fair for the players to ask the DM to let the dice decide instead of forcing them to play through some arbitrary scripted event.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 30, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> Are you familiar with the Kobayashi Maru scenario?




Yep! and that a perfect example!

Kirk won _through his own choices and generating consequences from them_ as opposed to Kirk's player changing the test to have a victory condition.


----------



## Mort (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Yep! and that a perfect example!
> 
> Kirk won _through his own choices and generating consequences from them_ as opposed to Kirk's player changing the test to have a victory condition.





A different perspective would be the DM presented option A) lose or option B) lose fully intending the player to lose

The player instead presented option C) win - 

and the DM (perhaps making the player roll a programing check etc.) ran with it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> As a player, if I ask if I know of a faster route, I'm asking if I know -- not if I can invent one.



It's the same thing.

In traditional rpgs, players create, or help to create, content all the time, by asking the GM questions. "Is there a rock nearby I can throw?" "What's the door made out of?" "What food do they serve in the inn?" It's highy unlikely, and undesirable, that any of this would have been predetermined by the GM. And it would never have been created in play unless the player asked the question. The GM alone isn't creating content, it's the players and GM working together. The questions the players ask are just as important as the answers the GM gives.

Even with content created by random rolls, all those tables so beloved by Gary Gygax, there's a strong player element, because player decision making determines which tables will be rolled on, and how often. If the players decide their characters go to a swamp, and the GM rolls up bullywugs on the random encounter table, then those bullywugs have been created by the players. In fact out of players, random table, and GM, the GM was probably the least important factor.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Yep! and that a perfect example!
> 
> Kirk won _through his own choices and generating consequences from them_ as opposed to Kirk's player changing the test to have a victory condition.




Excuse me?  Kirk changes the test conditions in order to allow for a winning scenario.  This is PRECISELY what we're talking about.  

Player of Kirk:  So, let me get this straight.  I have to take this test and it's unwinnable?
DM:  Yup.  
Player of Kirk:  Ok, bugger that.  I'm going to change the test parameters.  How do I do that?
DM:  (Thinks for a moment because he hadn't considered the possibility) Well, make a Computer Monkeybusiness check.
PoK:  Wow, a critical success.
DM:  Ok, you change the test parameters.

The point is, the test parameters were set in stone until such time as the player decided to see if he could change them.  The player's actions set about changes in the game's scenario.  This happens all the time.

Unless your game is 100% prepped with all possible contingencies mapped out, there will always be DM ad libbing.  And that ad libbing will, at the very least, be initiated at the prompting of the player.  Sure, the player cannot dictate things (at least not always - some systems do allow for it), but even in the most static of systems, the DM is still constantly going to have to introduce elements based on player suggestions.

Anything else and you're playing a video game.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't think there is any route until the DM canonizes it by describing the terrain during play. And unless that description excludes all possible alternatives, there's still room for player suggestion.




There's a significant chunk of wisdom in not over-specifying.  Is there a significant need to plot out the *exact* route the bad guy was taking beforehand?  If not, then don't do it.  This leaves you room to flex when the players come up with reasonable suggestions.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Oct 30, 2011)

Umbran said:


> There's a significant chunk of wisdom in not over-specifying.  Is there a significant need to plot out the *exact* route the bad guy was taking beforehand?  If not, then don't do it.  This leaves you room to flex when the players come up with reasonable suggestions.




Yep. Use broad strokes and sketch as much as possible. Fill in detail only as required.

Any campaign world played by different players should be virtually unrecognizable.

Same goes for the players playing the same world twice from scratch.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 30, 2011)

You know the more I think about this, the more I feel the "slippery slope" question is actually important to this discussion and shouldn't necessarily be skipped over...

So I'm curious of those people claiming that you should keep things vague and open... does this always apply. I mean if you've mapped out a dungeon and a player wants to find a forgotten cavern that leads to the end of it... do you let him? Or do you just never have anything that is concerretely defined in the world? If not how do you dedcide what is and what isn't open to narrative control by the players, and how do you communicate this to them? 

As to my own preferences, I tend to prefer this only in games with explicit mechanics that facilitate it (like drama points in Angel or Survival Points in Dead of Night)... because the cost, extent and limitations of narrative control are defined and the players know up front what they can and can't accomplish with narrative control (as well as everyone being on the same page as far as this is concerned.). I feel like when this is done with games like D&D you are either playing "Mother may I" with the GM and his expectations of what's reasonable for you to change...and/or existing in a world where things are not solidly defined.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 30, 2011)

Interesting responses so far. While I still don't like playing in games where players have narrative control I do think this thread shows how split people are on the issue and a GM is wise to know his players preferences before placing this on or taking it off the table.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You know the more I think about this, the more I feel the "slippery slope" question is actually important to this discussion and shouldn't necessarily be skipped over...
> 
> So I'm curious of those people claiming that you should keep things vague and open... does this always apply. I mean if you've mapped out a dungeon and a player wants to find a forgotten cavern that leads to the end of it... do you let him? Or do you just never have anything that is concerretely defined in the world? If not how do you dedcide what is and what isn't open to narrative control by the players, and how do you communicate this to them?



I take events that have happened as canon and do my best to abide by them. But as to future plans, I have only a very few things that are set in stone and I will not change, simply to give cohesion to the campaign. I can and have made radical changes to campaigns based on what happens at the table.

As an easy example, I had a plot in mind that involved teleportation and we had a mishap. I improvised a logical location for them to land and we played two more sessions that were in a place I never planned for them to be. I took characters they would have met anyway and inserted them into the new location, but the actual events that took place were very different from my (very detailed) plan.

How do I communicate my style to the players? I don't, really. I tell them a lot about what goes into a game, but during play it's up to them to figure out what can and cannot happen. Realistically, many of these player-initiated ideas are doomed to failure anyway. What if the player fails his check? This whole issue is moot.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 30, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I take events that have happened as canon and do my best to abide by them. But as to future plans, I have only a very few things that are set in stone and I will not change, simply to give cohesion to the campaign. I can and have made radical changes to campaigns based on what happens at the table.
> 
> As an easy example, I had a plot in mind that involved teleportation and we had a mishap. I improvised a logical location for them to land and we played two more sessions that were in a place I never planned for them to be. I took characters they would have met anyway and inserted them into the new location, but the actual events that took place were very different from my (very detailed) plan.
> 
> How do I communicate my style to the players? I don't, really. I tell them a lot about what goes into a game, but during play it's up to them to figure out what can and cannot happen. Realistically, many of these player-initiated ideas are doomed to failure anyway. What if the player fails his check? This whole issue is moot.




I understand adapting the future and that the past is set... but I'm moreso asking about the present.  How do you handle things in the here and now?  taking the dungeon example above... would you allow a 4e character to make a Dungeoneering check to create that passage to the last room?


----------



## Supergyro (Oct 30, 2011)

*Another tack*

I call it 'Schroedinger's law of gaming'. 

It doesn't exist until the players observe it. 

Maps are changable, worlds are changable, up until the players observe something.  Giving the players a little narrative control makes it more fun for them, allows one to build the world around the characters, much fun is had by all.  Moreover, this doesn't truly with conflict with anything due to Schroedinger's law of gaming.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I understand adapting the future and that the past is set... but I'm moreso asking about the present.  How do you handle things in the here and now?  taking the dungeon example above... would you allow a 4e character to make a Dungeoneering check to create that passage to the last room?



I didn't address that example because it's foreign to me-I don't really use maps, dungeons, or the rules you're referring to. That being said, let me think about it.

Is the dungeon's structure fundamental to the game? Does it matter if I change it? Do I want the players to be challenged by the dungeon's constituents? For me, I've used only a few sets of underground passages, they've usually been pretty linear, and they're usually just scenery, so I'd say changing it doesn't matter. Your mileage may vary.

There's also the realism issue. What is this "dungeon"? Who built it and what for? Depending on the answer, it may be plausible that a secret passage exists (given that most people don't enjoy facing their own traps and monsters) or not (if the dungeon is not intended to be traversed easily by anyone). As the DM, I know which it is (or I decide when needed). If the former scenario is true, a high-rolling player gets the logical outcome, a hint that there is a shortcut. If the latter is true, a high-rolling player gets the logical outcome, a hint that the road ahead is likely to be tough and that there is unlikely to be a shortcut. Would I allow a player to "create" a passage with such a skill? No. Only to remind me that such a passage could exist if the circumstances justify it.


A counterexample:
A party is traveling through the wilds. They are ambushed at night by a force they decide is an overwhelming threat. Thus, instead of fighting as the DM intended, a player decides to shoot a fireball 400+40 ft./level into the air as a distress signal, hoping that help will come.

Has the DM statted up a force of allies? No. Could creatures exist that might see the signal? Sure. In fact, it would almost be stranger to think that no such creatures exist, given how D&D wilderness terrain is so heavily populated.

---

In circumstances like thus, I roll a percentile, and set arbitrary standards the same way one sets a DC. A high result means that I improvise allies. A low result means that I improvise hostiles. A medium result means they just wasted a fireball. In no case did the players "create" a creature, but they nonetheless excercised a form of narrative control.

Would the creature have been there if the player hadn't sent up a flare? That's the kind of question I leave to philosophers.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 30, 2011)

I think it really depends on how narrative control is given. I like games that give players ways to affect their successes regardless of what the die says. Players can take Action points from Unearthed Arcana and make one result they don't like into one they like at least a little better or even regenerate some resources they might otherwise be expending. I like the hero points in Mutants and Masterminds that do much the same thing. I like a lot of the cards in Torg, though I have yet to see the major subplot cards be used for much more other than extra possibility points in a pinch.

I'm not as much a fan of a player taking over narration in exploring a dungeon and saying that, for instance, there's a bit of treasure or an orc hiding behind a column he's searching around. I'm less a fan of that sort of narrative control being in the hands of the players.

Like Fanaelialae, I don't see a player asking if he can use a skill of his to find a shortcut when pursuing a fleeing NPC as really taking over narrative control. He's still acting within the character's frame of reference. Unless you can see a finish line and a straight line with no obstructions go get to it, I think it's perfectly reasonable to let a players try to find a short cut. I'd even let them choose to try for an easier task or a harder task that might generate better, but more risky, results (which would be asserting some narrative control). There's a great chase scene subsystem that Paizo introduced in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players could take alternative skill checks to try to close the gap, some involved more risk but also had more reward.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 30, 2011)

Supergyro said:


> I call it 'Schroedinger's law of gaming'.
> 
> It doesn't exist until the players observe it.
> 
> Maps are changable, worlds are changable, up until the players observe something. Giving the players a little narrative control makes it more fun for them, allows one to build the world around the characters, much fun is had by all. Moreover, this doesn't truly with conflict with anything due to Schroedinger's law of gaming.




You do realize that some players don't necessarily enjoy narrative control and it doesn't create a better game for them.  

They may enjoy experiencing the world that the GM created or not enjoy stepping outside of their characters view point in order to use meta-game mechanics.  In other words I would be careful when generalizing about what is "more fun".


----------



## Janx (Oct 30, 2011)

Umbran said:


> There's a significant chunk of wisdom in not over-specifying.  Is there a significant need to plot out the *exact* route the bad guy was taking beforehand?  If not, then don't do it.  This leaves you room to flex when the players come up with reasonable suggestions.




I think it would be improbable or impossible for a GM to fully detail any area, let alone a large area to the finest level of detail for him to KNOW the actual answer if something exists or not at a given point.  In short, he has to make stuff up when the players ask.

This in turn ties to the keyword Story that the OP used in the OT.  I'm glad it didn't get dragged out, as it's not a Story issue.   It's an information issue, which is the same problem for a sandbox GM who eschews story.  In fact, one could argue, that the more detail the GM plans out, the greater risk of RailRoad behavior could kick in (RRing being a trait of planning to much on how things HAVE to be).

Narrative Control to me is in effect dictating what happens next or what actually exists.  Forex, the player saying "I race out into the street after the BBEG.  Seeing he's getting away on a horse, I pick up a loose cobblestone and throw it at him.  It hits the flank of his horse, and it rears up, throwing him to the ground.  I use that to catch up to him and cuff him."

The player invented content (the rock, the horse), dictated what he saw when first leaving the building (BBEG on horse), and dictated the outcome of his rock throwing attempt.

I suppose there's some kind of game where that's OK, but in most flavors of D&D:
the GM decides what the players see when they get to the street (BBEG on horse)
the player asks if there's a rock he can throw (GM decides if there's a loose cobblestone)
the player tries to hit the BBEG (attack roll with rock and hits)
the BBEG must make a Ride check (he fails)


players do not have perfect information.  Nor are they in control of outcomes.  Therefore, everything they say is really a question.
When they ask for a rock or a shortcut, the player is seeking the same information the PC has.  Does it exist?  They are not creating matter from nothing.  They are seeking information.  

The GM, lacking details on whether there's a rock in the PC's current square or not, has to determine that.  He is always the one creating objects in the game space, not the player.  But in his case, he simply does not waste time creating objects he doesn't know he needs (he may very well have never thought the PCs would be chasing the BBEG in the street, let alone needing to throw a rock because he left his crossbow at the hotel).

If the player asks "Can I throw a rock at him", he's actually seeking a number of details.  Is there a viable rock around (and not a useless pebble)?  Is the BBEG close enough to hit, or is it pretty obvious he's out of range?  A good listener realizes there's more to the question or proposal, and tries to account for it.

In the case of the shortcut, if your map is like mine, as a GM, you might not actually KNOW the answer.  So you really do have a choice to decide if it exists or not.  If you decide it exists, you might then make the PC do a skill check to see if he knows it.  

You could interpret that to mean that it does not exist if the PC does not succeed at that the PC created it.  But that's BS.  The GM determined the conditions for the PC to know of the shortcut and thus the GM still determined if the short cut exists by way of allowing the check in the first place.

As for documenting and rembering this shortcut?  How big a deal is it?  The PCs are running from point A to point B.  Odds are good, they will never need to run from point A to point B again.  Instead, needing to run from B to C or A to D or C to D.  This need not be a big deal.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 30, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I didn't address that example because it's foreign to me-I don't really use maps, dungeons, or the rules you're referring to. That being said, let me think about it.
> 
> Is the dungeon's structure fundamental to the game? Does it matter if I change it? Do I want the players to be challenged by the dungeon's constituents? For me, I've used only a few sets of underground passages, they've usually been pretty linear, and they're usually just scenery, so I'd say changing it doesn't matter. Your mileage may vary.
> 
> ...




I find your example kind of strange... in fact I almost don't consider that narrative control because the PC's did not in fact create anything in the narrative, you did in response to their actions in character. See to me handing over authorial/narrative control to the PC's is allowing them to create or shape something specifically. 

I guess I would consider it narrative control if they wanted to roll Nature in order to create/find a tribe of elves in the vicinity of the forest. In this example they are creating something specifically in the narrative and rolling to see if they doi so. 

I do not consider it narrative control if the PC's say they want to roll Nature to see if there are any tracks near them... and I as DM decide there are a tribe of elves in the forest and they have found their tracks. In the second example I still created the narrative, they didn't.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You know the more I think about this, the more I feel the "slippery slope" question is actually important to this discussion and shouldn't necessarily be skipped over...
> 
> So I'm curious of those people claiming that you should keep things vague and open... does this always apply. I mean if you've mapped out a dungeon and a player wants to find a forgotten cavern that leads to the end of it... do you let him? Or do you just never have anything that is concerretely defined in the world? If not how do you dedcide what is and what isn't open to narrative control by the players, and how do you communicate this to them?
> 
> As to my own preferences, I tend to prefer this only in games with explicit mechanics that facilitate it (like drama points in Angel or Survival Points in Dead of Night)... because the cost, extent and limitations of narrative control are defined and the players know up front what they can and can't accomplish with narrative control (as well as everyone being on the same page as far as this is concerned.). I feel like when this is done with games like D&D you are either playing "Mother may I" with the GM and his expectations of what's reasonable for you to change...and/or existing in a world where things are not solidly defined.




If the player can make a convincing argument for it, or I can think of a logical reason, then I'll let the player roll.  Since neither of those is likely to be the true in your scenario, I think this is a bit of a corner case.

Above ground, movement tends to be open unless specifically constrained.  

If someone is running along the sidewalk to reach a road that is an L from me, I can try running through the woods behind my house to head him off.  I may have to jump a creek and dodge a few tree branches, but a 40' wall shouldn't appear out of nowhere to prevent me from doing so.  If I really want to reach an unenclosed area above ground, chances are that I will eventually succeed.

On the other hand, underground movement tends to be logically constrained unless otherwise permitted.  I can't walk through the ground to get underground.  If I want to go underground, I have to find a hole or a cave.  (Let's set aside tunneling, for the moment, as a largely impractical option.)  Just because I make an effort to gain access to a bunker, doesn't mean I will succeed.

If I'm in the Dungeon of Irritation, then I know that the players have to pass through the Lavatory of Putridity and the Grotto of Unseemliness to reach the Throne Room of the Dungeon King.  
A PC with History might propose to me, "Can I make a roll to see if I know whether the Dungeon King's throne room has an escape tunnel?"
If his check is wildly successful, I might inform him that there is indeed a tunnel, but it isn't inside the dungeon.  Additionally, he might be aware that such tunnels weren't designed to be opened from the exit, and that the tunnel contains death traps that only the Dungeon King knew how to disable.  
Note that the player doesn't have the authority to dictate the details of the tunnel; he simply has the right to ask if one exists.  If I haven't considered the question prior, and it doesn't seem impossible, I let him roll.  Because of the uncertainty of the matter.

The players in the aforementioned scenario would have the option to play the dungeon as designed.  Alternately, they could leave, search for the secret tunnel, figure out a means by which to open it, and brave the traps within.  Just because there's an alternative doesn't mean you have to make it easy on them.

Of course, if the Dungeon King has a phobia of secret tunnels (rebels used an escape tunnel one night to assassinate his father) then it would be illogical for him to have a tunnel and I wouldn't let the player roll.  

It's all a matter of what's reasonable and plausible.  I've had the misfortune of playing with DMs whose default response was "No", and IMO that's bad DMing.


----------



## Janx (Oct 30, 2011)

Supergyro said:


> I call it 'Schroedinger's law of gaming'.
> 
> It doesn't exist until the players observe it.
> 
> Maps are changable, worlds are changable, up until the players observe something.  Giving the players a little narrative control makes it more fun for them, allows one to build the world around the characters, much fun is had by all.  Moreover, this doesn't truly with conflict with anything due to Schroedinger's law of gaming.




I'm wary of going down that path that all things are undefined.  Celebrim had some pretty good reasons on why not.  Forex, traps don't exist until the player looks for them being a common annoyance of an ad-libbing DM.  Suddenly every room is a trap-fest because the GM didn't think of it until the player asked.

I think it's more like applying Shroedinger and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

The GM cannot know or document all aboslute details.  It's too impractical to plan out in square 15,12 that there is 1mm of dust coating it and 2" left and 20" north there is a small ding in the tile where Steve dropped a hammer 20 years prior. and to apply that level of detail to every square of the game.

So, instead, the GM plans out the basics, and relies on winging it (Shroedinger) for the details if he needs it.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 30, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> If the player can make a convincing argument for it, or I can think of a logical reason, then I'll let the player roll. Since neither of those is likely to be the true in your scenario, I think this is a bit of a corner case.
> 
> Above ground, movement tends to be open unless specifically constrained.
> 
> ...




Yes but as I stated above, this doesn't seem like the DM is handing over narrative control to the PC's... it seems like the PC's are looking for something or searching for something and the GM is deciding, on the spot, whether it is there or not, thuis he is still retaining narrative control. In games with actual narrative control mechanics a PC can actually decide something (within the boundaries of the rules) and the GM doesn't get to decide whether it's there or not, it's details, etc....the player does. They have actual narrative control.



Fanaelialae said:


> I've had the misfortune of playing with DMs whose default response was "No", and IMO that's bad DMing.




I just realized I wanted to address this as well. As with anything I think a balance is probably the best route... I've seen the "Say Yes" DM's game descend into the realm of implausibility amnd silliness because any and everything is possible.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You do realize that some players don't necessarily enjoy narrative control and it doesn't create a better game for them.




In the case presented to us, the player *asked* for narrative control.

If the player is asking for things he or she doesn't actually want, well, that's a problem beyond what we can expect the GM to handle.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 30, 2011)

Umbran said:


> In the case presented to us, the player *asked* for narrative control.
> 
> If the player is asking for things he or she doesn't actually want, well, that's a problem beyond what we can expect the GM to handle.




What "case" the OP was about two opposing view points about narrative control.  I in turn was addressing the broad statement made that narrative control is more fun.  Not really understanding what point you are trying to make, could you clarify please?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yes but as I stated above, this doesn't seem like the DM is handing over narrative control to the PC's... it seems like the PC's are looking for something or searching for something and the GM is deciding, on the spot, whether it is there or not, thuis he is still retaining narrative control. In games with actual narrative control mechanics a PC can actually decide something (within the boundaries of the rules) and the GM doesn't get to decide whether it's there or not...the player does. They have actual narrative control.




Yeah, but even in those games (assuming they're playing an ordinary character) they can't just say "I want to flap my arms and fly away."  There's always a greater or lesser degree of player narrative control in a good game (IMO).  The final say might be left up to the players, the dice or the DM.  

If I ask my DM, "Are there any elves in the town square?" and the DM hasn't made a decision beforehand, I'm participating in the narrative process.  An undefined variable suddenly requires definition, and therefore must be defined for the game to continue.  I might have a Drama Point that allows me to tell the DM that there are elves in the square (automatic success for anything reasonable to the narrative).  The DM might decide that it's reasonable and, wanting to see where I go with this, say yes.  The DM might remain impartial and roll dice to resolve the matter, or say "You aren't sure, give me a perception check". 

The DM can also just say no.  This, IMO, most closely mirrors the OP's example.  What I'm saying is that, unless the DM has a good justification for doing so, he shouldn't just say no.  I'm also saying that, the unfortunate reality is that this is too often the case.

In any of the above cases (even the automatic no), the player has steered the narrative a certain direction, thereby exerting narrative control.  Prior to resolving the question, both the players and the DM were unaware as to whether or not there were elves in the square.  Afterward, they either know the answer or at least know that they don't know the answer.  

To use an analogy, if you're sitting in the driver's seat, I can grab the wheel and exert control.  You might have more control than I, but I have some control nonetheless.  An RPG is like a car where the DM is in the driver's seat, but all of the passengers also have a hand on the wheel.  When the driver and passengers cooperate, you have a nice ride.  If they don't, the car will most likely crash.  How much control the passengers prefer to exert on the wheel is up to them, but some DMs think that they're the only one driving and that typically results in all kinds of Mary Sue nonsense and other nastiness.


----------



## Janx (Oct 30, 2011)

Umbran said:


> In the case presented to us, the player *asked* for narrative control.
> 
> If the player is asking for things he or she doesn't actually want, well, that's a problem beyond what we can expect the GM to handle.




I think the player asked for Information, not narrative control.  Sure, it's a loaded question in that you can guess what the player will do next depending on what you answer.

But from the black box of D&D, when a player asks a question, the player is not inherently privy to whether I made it up, already knew the answer, or rolled for it.  therefore, the decision is still in the GM's control.

I'm not even sure how any of this is a problem.  The PCs want to catch the BBEG.  They think of taking a shortcut, so they want to know if that's possible.  They are trying to change the natural outcome of BBEG gets away to their preferred outcome of BBEG gets caught.

This is no different from when my BBEG jumps out of the shadows and attacks them.  I'm going to kill them because I have a weapon drawn and they don't.  The players want to change this natural outcome of TPK to one where they live and the BBEG dies.  So they draw weapons, which they assume they are still wearing, and they keep attacking it, which is really a question each round of "did I hurt it?"


----------



## Imaro (Oct 30, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> Yeah, but even in those games (assuming they're playing an ordinary character) they can't just say "I want to flap my arms and fly away." There's always a greater or lesser degree of player narrative control in a good game (IMO). The final say might be left up to the players, the dice or the DM.




Correct, but what they can create whole cloth is usually defined and the DM is not given veto power over it as long as they pay the appropriate cost. In the examples given it is still very much under the DM's control as he has the final say.



Fanaelialae said:


> If I ask my DM, "Are there any elves in the town square?" and the DM hasn't made a decision beforehand, I'm participating in the narrative process. An undefined variable suddenly requires definition, and therefore must be defined for the game to continue. I might have a Drama Point that allows me to tell the DM that there are elves in the square (automatic success for anything reasonable to the narrative). The DM might decide that it's reasonable and, wanting to see where I go with this, say yes. The DM might remain impartial and roll dice to resolve the matter, or say "You aren't sure, give me a perception check".




Participating in the narrative and having narrative control are two different things. Just by playing one's character you are participating in the narrative... that does not however equate to narrative control. In your example above if you can tell the DM that the elves are there you have exerted narrative control... other wise you are participating but not controlling the narrartive... the DM ultimately is.



Fanaelialae said:


> The DM can also just say no. This, IMO, most closely mirrors the OP's example. What I'm saying is that, unless the DM has a good justification for doing so, he shouldn't just say no. I'm also saying that, the unfortunate reality is that this is too often the case.




I think the issue is just where one DM's line of "good justification" is drawn as opposed to another DM's. This also has alot to do with playstyles, genre, etc.. 

On another note... if a player just wants to roll dice and kill some orcs, he isn't necessarily going to enjoy or even expect to have narrative control... so again, blanketing it in terms of good and bad doesn't seem correct given the nuances involved.



Fanaelialae said:


> In any of the above cases (even the automatic no), the player has steered the narrative a certain direction, thereby exerting narrative control. Prior to resolving the question, both the players and the DM were unaware as to whether or not there were elves in the square. Afterward, they either know the answer or at least know that they don't know the answer.




Yet ultimately (except in the drama point case) the DM still has narrative control. He can decide or not decide what does and does not exist. The player is involved in the narrative but is not actually controlling it. 



Fanaelialae said:


> use an analogy, if you're sitting in the driver's seat, I can grab the wheel and exert control. You might have more control than I, but I have some control nonetheless. An RPG is like a car where the DM is in the driver's seat, but all of the passengers also have a hand on the wheel. When the driver and passengers cooperate, you have a nice ride. If they don't, the car will most likely crash.




I think your analogy is off. In your example no one has to ask the DM and get permission before grabbing the wheel... yet in the examples of play presented so far that is exactly what is happening. The characters are asking the DM if something exists and the DM ultimately still has the control over the narrative. 



Fanaelialae said:


> How much control the passengers prefer to exert on the wheel is up to them, but some DMs think that they're the only one driving and that typically results in all kinds of Mary Sue nonsense and other nastiness.




This is full of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Being a DM that maintains narrative control in your game does not auto-equate to you being the only one participating or even driving the narrativbe since the PC's still have their character's and their abilities to try and shape the narrative. As to Mary Sue characters... they have nothing to do with whether you invest narrative control in the GM or whether it's shared, that's about a GM choosing to elevate an NPC above his players and can happen regardless of whether the PC's have narrative control or not.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Oct 30, 2011)

*Plot Cards*

My group has been using random plot cards as away to govern narrative control. (Although this is not how I have thought of it before reading this thread) 

Each session I deal 2 cards to each player, and they get to keep one. 
This has allowed them control over a specific plot element, and led to some of the more interesting events in the campaign.  It has also led to some problems.  In general it has worked well as a limited, but exciting way to pass narrative control between DM and players. 

I'm tearing up the on that allows them to say that one NPC was actually someone else in disguise.  Both times it was used it add the BBEG into an early session combat, unbalancing that fight and thwarting a more exciting planned battle.  

In other cases cards have started a plauge (as a complication to players intention) created an underground dwarven city, and allowed the easy addition of a new PC (a Genasi from the elemental chaos)  It also started 2 love affairs and a revolution.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...dex-cards-fly-setting-plot-collaboration.html


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro, I think that you and I are working with different definitions of narrative control. I think anytime you participate actively in a narritive you are exerting control. 

You seem to think that control equates to having final say. If that were the case though, even Drama Points wouldn't give the players narrative control because the DM can always say no (although he might be discouraged from doing so). After all, the DM can say no to flying by flappng my arms even if I spend a drama point.

The DM always has veto power. That's part of his role. How he uses that power determines his aptitude at that role IMO.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> What "case" the OP was about two opposing view points about narrative control.




The "case" I am referring to was an instance of play described to us in the OP: 

_"The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."
_



> I in turn was addressing the broad statement made that narrative control is more fun.  Not really understanding what point you are trying to make, could you clarify please?




You'd raised the point that not everyone wants control.  And that is true.  However, the case that started the discussion has the player actively and willfully stepping up to the plate, where there's no such worry.  I was just returning to the original context.



Janx said:


> I think the player asked for Information, not narrative control.  Sure, it's a loaded question in that you can guess what the player will do next depending on what you answer.




As written, above, it is pretty clearly phrased as an assertion, not a question.  If you want to read a question into it, that's fine, but that's an interpretation, not the explicit statement.

When you're talking about whether you know what the player wants, the difference is pretty important.  If the player is making assertions about what is the case, that's an attempt to take narrative control.  If they are asking questions, then they're leaving the GM with the control of the narrative.

In the described instance, the player was even polite and cooperative about it.  "Chances are...," leaves the GM the legitimate option to reject the assertion.


----------



## Janx (Oct 30, 2011)

Umbran said:


> As written, above, it is pretty clearly phrased as an assertion, not a question.  If you want to read a question into it, that's fine, but that's an interpretation, not the explicit statement.
> 
> When you're talking about whether you know what the player wants, the difference is pretty important.  If the player is making assertions about what is the case, that's an attempt to take narrative control.  If they are asking questions, then they're leaving the GM with the control of the narrative.
> 
> In the described instance, the player was even polite and cooperative about it.  "Chances are...," leaves the GM the legitimate option to reject the assertion.




As always, it comes down to semantics.  As DM of the D&D session (and not another system where the rules may be different), everything the player says is really a question, if nothing else a declaration of intent to attempt if able.

Meaning the DM determines the conditions under which it will happen.

It's no different than saying, "I'm an expert with the sword, chances are I know more than the BBEG does".  The GM still determines the outcome (presumably by rolling init and following the combat rules).

For D&D, ideally everything the PC wants to do or try or know should be phrased like a question or broached as an assumption for the PCs thought process like the OP's example.

The annoying mode being "I'm an expert of this city, I take a shortcut to head-off the BBEG."

GMs who have a habit of saying "No." probably learned it from the presumptiveness of this player's phrasing.  The very fact the GM can shoot this statement down and prevent that the action took place shows the GM is still retaining narrative control.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think your analogy is off. In your example no one has to ask the DM and get permission before grabbing the wheel... yet in the examples of play presented so far that is exactly what is happening. The characters are asking the DM if something exists and the DM ultimately still has the control over the narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> This is full of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Being a DM that maintains narrative control in your game does not auto-equate to you being the only one participating or even driving the narrativbe since the PC's still have their character's and their abilities to try and shape the narrative. As to Mary Sue characters... they have nothing to do with whether you invest narrative control in the GM or whether it's shared, that's about a GM choosing to elevate an NPC above his players and can happen regardless of whether the PC's have narrative control or not.




To elaborate on my previous post (I was posting from my phone), I think it is you who is misunderstanding something about my analogy.

Everyone in the car has a hand on the wheel.  The DM may be a 400 lb gorilla, and thereby impossible to be overpower but that doesn't mean that the passengers aren't trying to turn the wheel one way or the other.

If a player tries to take the "there are elves here" exit and the DM forces the car down the "there are no elves here" exit instead, the player has forced a change in the narrative.  Whereas before they were Schrodinger's elves, now they are now the elves of null.  It may not have been the change the player desired, but it is a change brought about by the player nonetheless.  We know something now within the game that we didn't know before.  Even the DM can't retcon it down the road without making a mess.  

Plenty of mechanics give players narrative control.  If I have my fighter attack an orc, the combat rules give me that control.  I may or may not succeed, but I've changed the narrative just by trying.  Of course, the DM can tell me that I can't attack the orc, but he should have a darn good reason or he's being arbitrary.  

Even the DM doesn't have total narrative control.  He has veto power, but if my magic user casts magic missile and the DM tells me that my auto-hit magic missiles missed, he'd better have a good reason for vetoing my narrative control.  I should be able to make a spellcraft check to determine that my target is protected by a Shield spell, or that it has magic resistance.  If my DM's justification is "just because I felt like it" he's cheating and his players have a right to feel slighted.

When you say that some players don't want narrative control, I think what you mean is that players don't want _total_ narrative control.  I believe that's true most of the time.  If it weren't, the DM's role would be fairly meaningless and the game wouldn't be much of a game.  However, I think that the only time players exert no narrative control is when they are being passive observers.  

There's a good amount of space between being the audience and being the DM's equal, and that's where I think most players fall.  In my experience, players want to be able to contribute to the narrative without necessarily dictating it.  I think that a good DM enables his players, without letting them walk all over him.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 30, 2011)

Well, I hope this thread stays productive. I'd hate to be one-half of a thread that wasn't!



Fanaelialae said:


> A map is static, and only good within a limited scope of detail.  Perhaps the city streets are particularly crowded this day, or there's been a carriage accident on that road, and the PC knows a rooftop or sewer route that allows them to bypass traffic.  If the villian's path includes turns, perhaps the PC knows a route cutting through shops and private residences that allows them to travel in a straight line.  I'd probably require additional checks (like athletics to vault a fence) in the latter case, as obstacles might certainly slow them down as well.  Just because you know a potentially faster route doesn't mean you necessarily have the means to take advantage of it.
> 
> Simulation is only an approximation.  Unless you've determined every event that happens in a city, and every location of every person within that city at every moment, I think it's perfectly fair for the players to ask the DM to let the dice decide instead of forcing them to play through some arbitrary scripted event.



This is where my feathers get ruffled. A successful Knowledge (local) check or the like is rolled, and if it's successful, you get to cut off the other guy. This makes sense to me when there is a different path to take. However, used as a narrative tool, I think it's easily misused and potentially unconsciously abused.

To me, a Knowledge check tells you about the setting, it does not shape it. A very high Knowledge check means that you know a lot about something, whatever it is. It does not mean (to me, at least) that you get to shape the setting based on it. When that's the case, players will begin to use it as such, and "narrative" skills will start to skyrocket in value. People will frequently use their skill checks not to learn and explore the setting, but to "warp reality" to fit their character's convenience.

I put "warp reality" in quotes because it's obviously not doing that to people that utilize these skill checks as narrative devices. Reality was never set, so it is not being warped. However, my group would view it as such, and would be against that implementation.

There's nothing wrong with playing with these skill checks as narrative devices. However, as the goal of my players is to immerse in the setting, they're seeking to explore the setting. Handing them narrative control takes away from a feel of exploration. They aren't finding out something new, they're _creating_ something new. While it might be good enough for some groups (and that's cool with me), it's not good enough for us (in a modern fantasy-genre game).

It's just preference. Immersion is very important to us, and narrative authority and control greatly pulls my players out of immersion, as they address creative meta uses for their abilities and skills. If immersion is nice but takes a quick backseat to a proactively interesting story, I can see the appeal. However, since I run an immersion-first, sandbox-style campaign, the idea of narrative control mechanics for the players works against what we're trying to achieve.

So, again, it's just personal preference. I don't find anything wrong with narrative control from a game theory standpoint (for everyone). I hope I've voiced why it's wrong for my group when we play in a modern fantasy-genre style game. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and I do use mechanics that allow for narrative control for players when I run M&M 2e (Hero Points).

I hope this communicates something productive. Just trying to give a clear depiction of my feelings on the subject. As always, play what you like 



Fanaelialae said:


> If I ask my DM, "Are there any elves in the town square?" and the DM hasn't made a decision beforehand, I'm participating in the narrative process.  An undefined variable suddenly requires definition, and therefore must be defined for the game to continue.  I might have a Drama Point that allows me to tell the DM that there are elves in the square (automatic success for anything reasonable to the narrative).  The DM might decide that it's reasonable and, wanting to see where I go with this, say yes.  The DM might remain impartial and roll dice to resolve the matter, or say "You aren't sure, give me a perception check".
> 
> The DM can also just say no.  This, IMO, most closely mirrors the OP's example.  What I'm saying is that, unless the DM has a good justification for doing so, he shouldn't just say no.  I'm also saying that, the unfortunate reality is that this is too often the case.



I have a section in my Running a Game chapter of my book called "Saying No". I think it's very important. You say, "yes" when it's the right time, and you say, "no" when it's the right time.

See, in games designed around story or the like, I like the mechanics of Drama Points or Hero Points to affect the narrative directly. I enjoy that (as do my players). We don't enjoy it in a modern fantasy-genre game. It's just taste. To us, it takes away from the fun of _exploring_. If you just made an elf appear, you didn't explore, you authored. That's fine in some situations to us, but it is the opposite of desirable in others.



> In any of the above cases (even the automatic no), the player has steered the narrative a certain direction, thereby exerting narrative control.  Prior to resolving the question, both the players and the DM were unaware as to whether or not there were elves in the square.  Afterward, they either know the answer or at least know that they don't know the answer.



This isn't how I'd define narrative control. He didn't actually control the narrative. He asked a question, and the focus was moved or clarified. Nothing was changed, added, or subtracted, which is how I'd define it. Perhaps it's just a definition issue that's plaguing us.



> To use an analogy, if you're sitting in the driver's seat, I can grab the wheel and exert control.  You might have more control than I, but I have some control nonetheless.  An RPG is like a car where the DM is in the driver's seat, but all of the passengers also have a hand on the wheel.  When the driver and passengers cooperate, you have a nice ride.  If they don't, the car will most likely crash.  How much control the passengers prefer to exert on the wheel is up to them, but some DMs think that they're the only one driving and that typically results in all kinds of Mary Sue nonsense and other nastiness.



Haha, I find this amusing. Our mileage has varied. As always, play what you like 



Umbran said:


> The "case" I am referring to was an instance of play described to us in the OP:
> 
> _"The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."_
> 
> You'd raised the point that not everyone wants control.  And that is true.  However, the case that started the discussion has the player actively and willfully stepping up to the plate, where there's no such worry.  I was just returning to the original context.



If my player said this, it'd be hoping it's true, not trying to exercise narrative control over the story (he doesn't know the villain is taking the most direct route, and is thus not trying to undermine that with narrative control necessarily). I think the intent is going to differ from group to group (as it has with our two groups). As such, I wouldn't assume the player wanted any more narrative control than if he said, "I'm the leader of the thieves' guild, so chances are pretty good that I can get them on gathering some local information for us." My player would assume it's reasonable based off of the consistency of the setting, and hope that it would turn out to be true. The assumption of narrative control here is an individual group thing, not a base assumption I find obvious.

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the player in the example wanted some form of narrative control. It just depends on the group. As always, play what you like


----------



## SkredlitheOgre (Oct 30, 2011)

To me, the entire issue comes down to the interpretation of _"chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

As I read it_, this is simply translated as "Let me roll to see if I know a shortcut and my character can be awesome!"  Doing that is well within the mechanics of the character and I don't see any problems with doing that at all_, _from any standpoint.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 30, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I hope this thread stays productive. I'd hate to be one-half of a thread that wasn't!
> 
> 
> This is where my feathers get ruffled. A successful Knowledge (local) check or the like is rolled, and if it's successful, you get to cut off the other guy. This makes sense to me when there is a different path to take. However, used as a narrative tool, I think it's easily misused and potentially unconsciously abused.
> ...




I don't agree that it "warps reality".  If I give an undefined value definition, that isn't a warping but rather a definition of reality.

I agree that if the DM has set the definition of the villain's route as the absolute quickest possible, then the best a Knowledge check can do is tell the player that that is the case.  However, if the villain just ran down a busy road in a bustling city, my bull meter is going to go off if the DM tells me that.  If the DM shuts a good idea down just because he feels like it, he's railroading.

I'm not saying that the DM should change reality to suit the whims of the players.  What I am saying is that anything undefined should be subject to reasonable definition, in whole or in part, by the needs of the players.

A player shouldn't be able to use knowledge to walk around a corner and find a holy avenger.  He should, however, be able to use it to learn the last known location of a holy avenger (unless holy avengers don't exist in your game).

In the given example, unless the villain is using the objectively best route possible (unlikely), the PCs should be allowed a chance to think of a better route.  The better route doesn't have to guarantee their success, but it should give them a chance if that seems possible.

Have your players never asked you if there's a rock nearby that they can pick up?  If so, they've participated in the creative process whether they realize it or not.  Assuming you said yes, where once there was only the ether of imagination now there is an (imaginary) rock.  Players constantly help to define a game's reality.  Have you ever created a "dungeon" intended for frontal assault, and the players sought an alternate means of entry even though you didn't anticipate that possibility?  Maybe they looked to you for an answer instead of rolling, but nonetheless they were participating in the shared narrative.  Apparently they just prefer that you, not the dice, arbitrate.  That's fine; if anything, it speaks to your fairness as a judge.

If the player asks you whether he knows a shorter route, and you say yes (taking into account that he grew up as a thief on the streets of this city) then that's fine by me.  If you say no for no reason, that's more of an issue since the request seems feasible.  I do prefer dice as a general rule, because I've had the misfortune to play with a bad DM, and I know that at least the dice will be impartial.  I've only had one DM who I'd trust 100% to make such calls, but he actually prefers to resolve unknowns using dice.

I'm not saying how shared narrative control should be arbitrated.  I'm only putting forth the stance that it should be done fairly, and that sometimes that sadly isn't the case.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 31, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't agree that it "warps reality".  If I give an undefined value definition, that isn't a warping but rather a definition of reality.



I feel I addressed this:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I put "warp reality" in quotes because it's obviously not doing that to people that utilize these skill checks as narrative devices. Reality was never set, so it is not being warped. However, my group would view it as such, and would be against that implementation.






Fanaelialae said:


> I agree that if the DM has set the definition of the villain's route as the absolute quickest possible, then the best a Knowledge check can do is tell the player that that is the case.  However, if the villain just ran down a busy road in a bustling city, my bull meter is going to go off if the DM tells me that.  If the DM shuts a good idea down just because he feels like it, he's railroading.



I don't think that's railroading, but I don't see the point of it. Then again, I think if he lets a player do something just because he feels like it, I don't see the point of it.



Fanaelialae said:


> I'm not saying that the DM should change reality to suit the whims of the players.  What I am saying is that anything undefined should be subject to reasonable definition, in whole or in part, by the needs of the players.
> 
> A player shouldn't be able to use knowledge to walk around a corner and find a holy avenger.  He should, however, be able to use it to learn the last known location of a holy avenger (unless holy avengers don't exist in your game).
> 
> In the given example, unless the villain is using the objectively best route possible (unlikely), the PCs should be allowed a chance to think of a better route.  The better route doesn't have to guarantee their success, but it should give them a chance if that seems possible.



I'm addressing the given example in the original post. Here it is:


			
				Mort said:
			
		

> *The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him.* Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain (*essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it*)?



In the example, it's the best route. You can change it, but it's acknowledged that it's changing the reality of the game world. You don't see it as warping reality, and I understand that. My players (and I) would. It's preference.



Fanaelialae said:


> Have your players never asked you if there's a rock nearby that they can pick up?  If so, they've participated in the creative process whether they realize it or not.  Assuming you said yes, where once there was only the ether of imagination now there is an (imaginary) rock.  Players constantly help to define a game's reality.  Have you ever created a "dungeon" intended for frontal assault, and the players sought an alternate means of entry even though you didn't anticipate that possibility?  Maybe they looked to you for an answer instead of rolling, but nonetheless they were participating in the shared narrative.  Apparently they just prefer that you, not the dice, arbitrate.  That's fine; if anything, it speaks to your fairness as a judge.



I feel I've addressed this, too:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> This isn't how I'd define narrative control. He didn't actually control the narrative. He asked a question, and the focus was moved or clarified. Nothing was changed, added, or subtracted, which is how I'd define it. Perhaps it's just a definition issue that's plaguing us.



What you're describing isn't how I'd define "narrative control". You define it differently.



Fanaelialae said:


> If the player asks you whether he knows a shorter route, and you say yes (taking into account that he grew up as a thief on the streets of this city) then that's fine by me.  If you say no for no reason, that's more of an issue since the request seems feasible.  I do prefer dice as a general rule, because I've had the misfortune to play with a bad DM, and I know that at least the dice will be impartial.  I've only had one DM who I'd trust 100% to make such calls, but he actually prefers to resolve unknowns using dice.



I'd still call for a die roll most of the time, to see if he knows. However, it's not to decide if there is a shorter route. Sometimes, I'll answer yes or no with no roll involved (I have a PC that's currently designing a city, is a master craftsman, and has a 22 Int and an 18 Wis). If he asked, "is there a faster way through the city?", I probably wouldn't make him roll. He designed it, he's incredibly intelligent with a great memory, and it's his profession. He just knows.



Fanaelialae said:


> I'm not saying how shared narrative control should be arbitrated.  I'm only putting forth the stance that it should be done fairly, and that sometimes that sadly isn't the case.



I have no issue with what you're saying here. As always, play what you like


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> In the example, it's the best route. You can change it, but it's acknowledged that it's changing the reality of the game world. You don't see it as warping reality, and I understand that. My players (and I) would. It's preference.




In the initial example it isn't the best route, only the most direct route shown on the map.  Unless it's a more detailed map than any I've ever seen in an rpg, it will fail to account for any number of very realistic factors.  Most maps only show major thoroughfares and landmarks.  Things like back alley routes, as well as rooftops, sewers, and back yards are all neglected.

If versimilitude is important to you, then it stands to reason that allowing the players to take realistic actions (even those you didn't account for originally) should be important as well.

Saying that something doesn't exist in the campaign until the DM makes it explicitly so seems silly to me.  If you forget to mention your Rome-like city's sewer system in you notes, does offal accumulate in the streets until you finally think to map it out?  Of course not.  Just because your map isn't detailed enough to show every back alley in the city, doesn't that mean no such alleyways exist.  Think of the poor ruffians!  

If back alleys exist, and the players are clever enough to think to use them, they should be allowed a chance to use them.  It doesn't have to (and generally shouldn't) assure success.  The back alley route might even have additional complications to deal with, such a band of surly street thugs.  However, if it's logically possible, then the players should be allowed to try.

Play styles vary, and I agree that people should play the way they want.  I just find it hard to imagine how you play without doing this or completely railroading your players.  If you'd described the area in the initial example as a residential district, and the players wanted to cut through the back yards but you hadn't made the map that detailed, what would you do?  Tell them that they can't because you don't know whether the layout of that district permits it?  Ad lib it?  Or are your maps simply detailed down to every last rooftop, tree, park bench, and rock, such that this has never been an issue?  Have you really never had to ever improvise anything, because I can't even begin to imagine a game like that.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 31, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You know the more I think about this, the more I feel the "slippery slope" question is actually important to this discussion and shouldn't necessarily be skipped over...
> 
> So I'm curious of those people claiming that you should keep things vague and open... does this always apply. I mean if you've mapped out a dungeon and a player wants to find a forgotten cavern that leads to the end of it... do you let him? Or do you just never have anything that is concerretely defined in the world? If not how do you dedcide what is and what isn't open to narrative control by the players, and how do you communicate this to them?
> 
> As to my own preferences, I tend to prefer this only in games with explicit mechanics that facilitate it (like drama points in Angel or Survival Points in Dead of Night)... because the cost, extent and limitations of narrative control are defined and the players know up front what they can and can't accomplish with narrative control (as well as everyone being on the same page as far as this is concerned.). I feel like when this is done with games like D&D you are either playing "Mother may I" with the GM and his expectations of what's reasonable for you to change...and/or existing in a world where things are not solidly defined.




A counter question:  Do the players know if there is a secret passage or not?  Has this been previously established in play at all?

If it hasn't, then, from the player's point of view, nothing has changed.  There is no "Mother May I" going on here because nothing, again from the player's POV, has been altered.  Now, the DM might think, "Hey, that's a cool idea, let's run with that" or he might let the dice decide, or he might veto the whole thing - it's all up to the DM and none of those choices is better than another all of the time.  Sometimes it would be fine, other times, not so much.

That all comes down to DM skill.

No one is saying that the players should have final say.  What is being said, is that it often makes the players more involved in the game to allow them to default to having a say in what happens, with the DM reserving veto power.




			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> This is where my feathers get ruffled. A successful Knowledge (local) check or the like is rolled, and if it's successful, you get to cut off the other guy. This makes sense to me when there is a different path to take. However, used as a narrative tool, I think it's easily misused and potentially unconsciously abused.
> 
> To me, a Knowledge check tells you about the setting, it does not shape it. A very high Knowledge check means that you know a lot about something, whatever it is. It does not mean (to me, at least) that you get to shape the setting based on it. When that's the case, players will begin to use it as such, and "narrative" skills will start to skyrocket in value. People will frequently use their skill checks not to learn and explore the setting, but to "warp reality" to fit their character's convenience.
> 
> I put "warp reality" in quotes because it's obviously not doing that to people that utilize these skill checks as narrative devices. Reality was never set, so it is not being warped. However, my group would view it as such, and would be against that implementation




The problem is, again, you're presuming a level of knowledge of the setting on the part of the DM that may not exist.  It's pretty easy for the player to ask questions about details that the DM hasn't pre-defined - Is there a short cut, as an example.  

How is the answer to that question (Is there a shortcut), either yes or no, not an exploration of the setting?

Now, if things start changing after being established in play, that's a different beastie alltogether.  But, since nothing is actually established, the only thing that could be contradicted only exists in the DM's head, there is no changing of reality going on at all from the player's POV.  

They are exploring the setting and the DM is guiding that exploration based on what they are looking for.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Excuse me?  Kirk changes the test conditions in order to allow for a winning scenario.  This is PRECISELY what we're talking about.
> 
> Player of Kirk:  So, let me get this straight.  I have to take this test and it's unwinnable?
> DM:  Yup.
> ...




That's not narrative control; that's the player setting a goal and affecting the game reality through actions taken by his character -- actions that are observed, have consequence, and are within the character's abilities and range of choice.  The player did not add to or adjust the reality of the setting -- the character did.

Authorial control would be more like the player saying "That is a stupid test!  How about having a REALLY hard to find 'win' state if I roll high enough?"  and the DM agreeing.

That change is outside the range of choice of the character and adjusts the reality presented originally by the DM in a way that cannot be attributed to the character.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 31, 2011)

Having an unalterable map and adamant DM seems awfully, to use a term I hate, railroady to me.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 31, 2011)

Nagol said:


> In the original scenario, the DM looked down at is map and saw that there wasn't a faster route.
> 
> You don't need a full map zoom to know, really.  Alleyways as side passages by and large are not faster unless there are extenuating circumstances -- like a meandering road when a straighter path is possible,




I'm not sure that in D&D, the city you're in being (pseudo-)medieval should be considered an extenuating circumstance.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 31, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> In the initial example it isn't the best route, only the most direct route shown on the map.  Unless it's a more detailed map than any I've ever seen in an rpg, it will fail to account for any number of very realistic factors.  Most maps only show major thoroughfares and landmarks.  Things like back alley routes, as well as rooftops, sewers, and back yards are all neglected.



You're wording here is correct, but you forgot the second area I highlighted. Here it is again:


			
				Mort said:
			
		

> *essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it*



If he allows a shortcut, it changes the reality of the game world. Why? Because it's the best route. The context is clear, even if the word "direct" was used. My opinion.



> If versimilitude is important to you, then it stands to reason that allowing the players to take realistic actions (even those you didn't account for originally) should be important as well.



Of course.



> Saying that something doesn't exist in the campaign until the DM makes it explicitly so seems silly to me.



Good thing I've never said that, then, huh 



> If you forget to mention your Rome-like city's sewer system in you notes, does offal accumulate in the streets until you finally think to map it out?  Of course not.  Just because your map isn't detailed enough to show every back alley in the city, doesn't that mean no such alleyways exist.  Think of the poor ruffians!



Again, the context of the quote cleared this up nicely in my mind.



> If back alleys exist, and the players are clever enough to think to use them, they should be allowed a chance to use them.  It doesn't have to (and generally shouldn't) assure success.  The back alley route might even have additional complications to deal with, such a band of surly street thugs.  However, if it's logically possible, then the players should be allowed to try.



Yep. And as far as I can tell, by the context of the example, it wasn't logically possible.



> Play styles vary, and I agree that people should play the way they want.  I just find it hard to imagine how you play without doing this or completely railroading your players.



I don't play the way you're describing. No conflicts here 



> If you'd described the area in the initial example as a residential district, and the players wanted to cut through the back yards but you hadn't made the map that detailed, what would you do?  Tell them that they can't because you don't know whether the layout of that district permits it?  Ad lib it?  Or are your maps simply detailed down to every last rooftop, tree, park bench, and rock, such that this has never been an issue?  Have you really never had to ever improvise anything, because I can't even begin to imagine a game like that.



I don't use city maps, dungeon maps, etc. I only use a regional or continental map. So, I adlib. However, I did say:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I'm addressing the given example in the original post.



As always, play what you like 



Hussar said:


> The problem is, again, you're presuming a level of knowledge of the setting on the part of the DM that may not exist.



I was commenting on the example, in which the path was clearly defined (the path and the map were already accounted for).



> It's pretty easy for the player to ask questions about details that the DM hasn't pre-defined - Is there a short cut, as an example.
> 
> How is the answer to that question (Is there a shortcut), either yes or no, not an exploration of the setting?



It is an exploration of the setting. I said that _players exercising narrative control by making things real in-game_ is bypassing exploration of the setting.



> Now, if things start changing after being established in play, that's a different beastie alltogether.  But, since nothing is actually established, the only thing that could be contradicted only exists in the DM's head, there is no changing of reality going on at all from the player's POV.



True. This is where I mentioned illusionism and the social contract, and where I explained why I put "warp reality" in quotes.



> They are exploring the setting and the DM is guiding that exploration based on what they are looking for.



If they ask about an ally, yes, it's exploring. If they have the authority to make one, then no, it's not exploring. Just my opinion. As always, play what you like 



Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Having an unalterable map and adamant DM seems awfully, to use a term I hate, railroady to me.



The unalterable map seems like setting to me. Having a GM that is "adamant" might be railroady, but if it's to contain the internal consistency of the world -even outside of the player's eyes- that's not railroady to me. And, like I've said, my group would feel I cheated to make things easier for them if I "fudged" the map in their favor. As always, play what you like


----------



## Mort (Oct 31, 2011)

Nagol said:


> That's not narrative control; that's the player setting a goal and affecting the game reality through actions taken by his character -- actions that are observed, have consequence, and are within the character's abilities and range of choice.  The player did not add to or adjust the reality of the setting -- the character did.
> 
> Authorial control would be more like the player saying "That is a stupid test!  How about having a REALLY hard to find 'win' state if I roll high enough?"  and the DM agreeing.
> 
> That change is outside the range of choice of the character and adjusts the reality presented originally by the DM in a way that cannot be attributed to the character.




You're setting the bar for narrative control awfully high. 

In the situation that Hussar presented (or reiterated as it was mentioned before) the DM *did not set up or even have a possible win condition* - the player created one. That's hard to define as anything other than narrative control.

I suppose you could say when giving the scenario the DM hoped (but did not in any way state, mention, or even hint) that super secret option D (cheat the scenario to a win condition contrary to everything else presented or done before) was available and therefore it was not _really_ player instigation and changing the scenario - but that seems a bit of a stretch.

One complication is that this (player narrative control in the game) is not a black and white issue. There is quite a possible range going on here whith most games falling along the spectrum. I think finding a game where players have 0% narrative control (from a real sense) would be just as rare as a game where players have 100% narrative control (I think such games exist, but D&D certainly doesn't readily support the playstyle).


----------



## Mort (Oct 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'd still call for a die roll most of the time, to see if he knows. However, it's not to decide if there is a shorter route. Sometimes, I'll answer yes or no with no roll involved (I have a PC that's currently designing a city, is a master craftsman, and has a 22 Int and an 18 Wis). If he asked, "is there a faster way through the city?", I probably wouldn't make him roll. He designed it, he's incredibly intelligent with a great memory, and it's his profession. He just knows.




What if it's a question you as DM don't actually know the answer to with certainty? Such that when this player asks "Is there a faster way through the city?" And it's this player whos character actually knows the answer better than either of you, how is that decided?

To stretch the example to its likely limits:

This character has a 22 INT and an 18 WIS so likely knows and remembers 
just about all aspects about the city.

He knows the villian is headed by the most direct route to where he needs to go. BUT he also knows that the most direct route is not always the fastest, especially on days when the streetfair is in town (he knows it is town today, this is HIS city). Thus he (and the members of his party at his direction) take a route not hampered by the street fair and catch up to the villain/beat the villain to his destination.

The above can be accomplished in a number of ways from a RP/game perspective:

1) The player wanting to catch the villain tells the DM "I want to catch the villain" and the DM comes up with the above scenario for the player catching the villian. Arguably this does not have the player influencing the narrative at all - except for the fact that the player got *exactly* what he wanted so there is little difference.

2)  The player tells the DM what he wants and the DM has the player make opposing checks with the villain. The player, winning the check, comes up with the above scenario to catch the villian. This is a clear case of the player having at least some control of the narrative.

I'm sure there are others but it's 12:00 a.m. and I should probably be going to bed .

On the flip side: The player (who's character has all of the qualifications mentioned above) asks the DM if there is a quicker route. The DM, looking down at the map decides it's a complete picture and the player is out of luck the villain gets there first and the character knows it. Frankly it is with this answer that I'd feel cheated, because the DM didn't *really* take all relevant factors into acount just the ones he chose to that likely led to his preferred outcome.

[edit]just to address another issue, in the original example I mentioned looking down at a map - that's true. But it's just a map (that only the DM is looking at currently btw) not some official document with a seal on it that states "this is the one true way, there are no passages, situations, or other circumstances other than what are on this map."
 Or to put it another way, I don't think having "a map" is an excuse to limit possibilies for the DM (or the players) - the map is a helpful tool - if it's anything else, it's a crutch.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 31, 2011)

Interesting discussion (at least the first couple of pages). 

I come down pretty hard on the "if there's no shorter route, there's no shorter route" side here. However:



Hussar said:


> But, the thing is Nagol, it's extremely unlikely the DM will actually have the detail to know the definitive answer to that question.  Unless you've mapped your city down to a full zoom Google Maps level, it's virtually impossible to answer that question.
> 
> After all, even if you have the major and minor routes on your map, it's unlikely you have all alleyways and whatnot as well.




Personally, every city in my campaign that I have mapped out- which is not many- IS mapped to the level of detail that shows every hill, building, street and alleyway (some even have all the streets named!). So that probably factors into my approach.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 31, 2011)

Mort said:


> What if it's a question you as DM don't actually know the answer to with certainty? Such that when this player asks "Is there a faster way through the city?" And it's this player whos character actually knows the answer better than either of you, how is that decided?



I'd decide, based on my feel for the current situation. In my mind, and in what I've expressed to the players, I'd decide if the path was direct, if there was a faster way, and go with that. It's more of a reflexive answer on my part.



> To stretch the example to its likely limits:
> 
> This character has a 22 INT and an 18 WIS so likely knows and remembers
> just about all aspects about the city.
> ...



This is a distinct possibility.



> The above can be accomplished in a number of ways from a RP/game perspective:
> 
> 1) The player wanting to catch the villain tells the DM "I want to catch the villain" and the DM comes up with the above scenario for the player catching the villian. Arguably this does not have the player influencing the narrative at all - except for the fact that the player got *exactly* what he wanted so there is little difference.



That's either narrative control on behalf of a player, or a very narrative-based group. Either way, it's going against what my group and our social contract enjoy in a fantasy RPG.



> 2)  The player tells the DM what he wants and the DM has the player make opposing checks with the villain. The player, winning the check, comes up with the above scenario to catch the villian. This is a clear case of the player having at least some control of the narrative.



Our definition of "some" differs 

Well, not really. It is only "some". But it's far, far more than we'd want.



> I'm sure there are others but it's 12:00 a.m. and I should probably be going to bed .
> 
> On the flip side: The player (who's character has all of the qualifications mentioned above) asks the DM if there is a quicker route. The DM, looking down at the map decides it's a complete picture and the player is out of luck the villain gets there first and the character knows it. Frankly it is with this answer that I'd feel cheated, because the DM didn't *really* take all relevant factors into acount just the ones he chose to that likely led to his preferred outcome.



See, this leads back to the whole "not trusting the GM" thing that I run into occasionally. I think it's precisely because I don't fudge for or against the PCs that my players trust me. I know this will vary from group to group, though. There's definitely no way I'm going to railroad the game. As I've said before, I run a very, very sandbox style game.



> [edit]just to address another issue, in the original example I mentioned looking down at a map - that's true. But it's just a map (that only the DM is looking at currently btw) not some official document with a seal on it that states "this is the one true way, there are no passages, situations, or other circumstances other than what are on this map."
> Or to put it another way, I don't think having "a map" is an excuse to limit possibilies for the DM (or the players) - the map is a helpful tool - if it's anything else, it's a crutch.



I addressed this:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> The unalterable map seems like setting to me. Having a GM that is "adamant" might be railroady, but if it's to contain the internal consistency of the world -even outside of the player's eyes- that's not railroady to me. And, like I've said, my group would feel I cheated to make things easier for them if I "fudged" the map in their favor.



As I've said: it's preference. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> The unalterable map seems like setting to me. Having a GM that is "adamant" might be railroady, but if it's to contain the internal consistency of the world -even outside of the player's eyes- that's not railroady to me. And, like I've said, my group would feel I cheated to make things easier for them if I "fudged" the map in their favor. As always, play what you like




The map is one part of setting, not setting as a whole. The tone and ability for characters to be heroic is also setting. So which element of setting trumps another? I think you make a pretty arbitrary argument here.

As for consistency? Well if anything, it limits the characters ability to be heroic which isn't very consistent in a setting which considers said character to be a hero.

I don't think there is any way around that example. It would be railroady but as you said, if that's your thing.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 31, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> The map is one part of setting, not setting as a whole. The tone and ability for characters to be heroic is also setting. So which element of setting trumps another?



The map.



> I think you make a pretty arbitrary argument here.



No, I'm making an argument of taste.



> As for consistency? Well if anything, it limits the characters ability to be heroic which isn't very consistent in a setting which considers said character to be a hero.



By that token, so does dying, and missing in combat, and so on. I don't agree with those, nor do I agree that the map must be altered for heroics to be had.



> I don't think there is any way around that example. It would be railroady but as you said, if that's your thing.



You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I'm not trying to convince you to play any way you don't like. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> The map.




So setting, to you, is reduced to preordained lines on paper?



> No, I'm making an argument of taste.



If that's true, then it's not a very good one.



> By that token, so does dying, and missing in combat, and so on. I don't agree with those, nor do I agree that the map must be altered for heroics to be had.



I agree, so does dying and missing in combat which is the main reason why dying and unbalanced PCs have taken a back seat.



> You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I'm not trying to convince you to play any way you don't like. As always, play what you like



I never said you were. I was just making a comment on your reply. You're quick to point out that I should live and let live while asserting why my opinion isn't right and curtailing any response. 

Which one do you want me to do? Live and let live or reply to your comment?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 31, 2011)

My view is that the chase scenario, like a combat, is a conflict and there is nothing objectionable about it being resolved in the same manner as any other conflict ie via the standard action resolution mechanics.

In 4e this would be a skill challenge. The last time I ran such a skill challenge the NPC escaped because the PCs lost control of their warmount (a behemoth captured from some hobgoblins).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 31, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> So setting, to you, is reduced to preordained lines on paper?



Of course not. Please don't reduce this conversation into hyperbole or an argument. And, if you insist on it, please take it up with someone else.



> If that's true, then it's not a very good one.



Are you attacking my taste? Because that'd be amusing.



> I agree, so does dying and missing in combat which is the main reason why dying and unbalanced PCs have taken a back seat.



What? I assume you're not in favor of PCs hitting the enemy every attack roll.



> I never said you were. I was just making a comment on your reply. You're quick to point out that I should live and let live while asserting why my opinion isn't right and curtailing any response.



... when did I say you're opinion wasn't right? When I said to play what you like? When I said that this is just my opinion? When I said you're entitled to your opinion? When I said it's a matter of taste? When I said it's up to the group and their social contract? I feel like I've been pretty clear that this is my view, and that I'm not trying to convince you to change, nor am I saying that you're wrong.



> Which one do you want me to do? Live and let live or reply to your comment?



Out of those two, if that's all you can think of, then live and let live. No need to reply to my comment if you can't do both.

As always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> My view is that the chase scenario, like a combat, is a conflict and there is nothing objectionable about it being resolved in the same manner as any other conflict ie via the standard action resolution mechanics.
> 
> In 4e this would be a skill challenge. The last time I ran such a skill challenge the NPC escaped because the PCs lost control of their warmount (a behemoth captured from some hobgoblins).



This would seem appropriate to me, too. Roll some opposed checks / a skill challenge to see if you catch him. There are different methods, but I'm with you in the basic concept of using the mechanics to solve it. As always, play what you like


----------



## Nagol (Oct 31, 2011)

Mort said:


> You're setting the bar for narrative control awfully high.
> 
> In the situation that Hussar presented (or reiterated as it was mentioned before) the DM *did not set up or even have a possible win condition* - the player created one. That's hard to define as anything other than narrative control.
> 
> ...




The player did not alter the reality.  The player examined the reality through his character and chose a goal that, given his skills, location, and purpose, should be accomplishable.

That is character agency.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't use city maps, dungeon maps, etc. I only use a regional or continental map. So, I adlib.




If this is the case, I don't see how your complaint about "warped reality"  tracks.

If you never use maps, and constantly ad lib, then your campaign's reality is in a constant state of flux.  Plenty of things aren't fixed until they are observed (by the PCs).  Ad lib is making it up as you go along.  You might have guidelines in your head, things you've decided upon beforehand, but plenty of things won't be decided until the players think to ask.  Hence, if a player in your campaign asked whether he can cut the villain off by running across the nearby rooftops, I expect you might let him.  Perhaps not if the area has been described as a cluster of towers, but probably so if it were a packed group of low houses.

Now, if you have a map of the town and the villain takes off down the main thoroughfare, and your map might allow a faster path if it showed the rooftops (but it isn't that detailed), would you still consider it "warping reality" and ban it out of hand?  Would your answer still be the same if we accepted the premise, that you'd probably allow the attempt if there hadn't been a map.

If you were forced to play with a rough map of a tavern (that showed tables but no chairs) and a player wanted his character to pick up a chair and smack someone with it, would you deny him the ability to grab a chair because it isn't on the map?  What if, same scenario, you'd already read a flavor text description of patrons sitting on low-backed bar stools?

Personally, I think this just demonstrates your preferred play style.  You don't use maps, therefore you haven't had to deal with the issue of a poorly detailed map.  I think if you ever do run a module with a poor map, you'll find that forcing the players to cleave to such a poor model of reality will result in a poor game.


----------



## wedgeski (Oct 31, 2011)

I'm a bit bemused by this conversation. According to some definitions here, it seems to that asking things like: "Can I roll Streetwise to find a vendor who'll give me good coin for these scriptures?" or "Can I find a navigator who knows these shores better than the Dread Pirate Roberts?" will grant unacceptable levels of narrative control to the player.

This is just my own style of play, naturally, but I would consider an outright "No" to either of those questions to be an unacceptable impediment to player involvement in my game.

The original question, of whether a PC familiar with a city might know a better route out than the villain, is to me the gold standard of giving players the *tools* they need to play the game well. I can conceive of no map that would illustrate everything the DM needed to say "No" to that question. No hidden sewer? No rat run? No abandoned basement known by the local pick-pockets as a short-cut? No washing line triple-strung deliberately across Main Street so the local urchins could give the town guard the slip?


----------



## Imaro (Oct 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> A counter question: Do the players know if there is a secret passage or not? Has this been previously established in play at all?
> 
> If it hasn't, then, from the player's point of view, nothing has changed. There is no "Mother May I" going on here because nothing, again from the player's POV, has been altered. Now, the DM might think, "Hey, that's a cool idea, let's run with that" or he might let the dice decide, or he might veto the whole thing - it's all up to the DM and none of those choices is better than another all of the time. Sometimes it would be fine, other times, not so much.
> 
> ...




First, if it comes down to DM decision it is in fact "Mother may I"... you are asking the DM whether something exists and it boils down to his decision.

See I think there may be a big disconnect as far as what some versus others consider narrative control. Using an example many of us may be familiar with... un-eratta'd Come and Get It. It was considered narrative control because there was no DM discretion or mechanical uncertainty in it's changing of the narrative. No save, no DM veto power, none of that. That IMO is an example of narrative control given over to players.  It is not narrative control now because the narrative is uncertain because of the Will attk requirement now (I think this is how it works now, but if I'm wrong someone please correct me.).

I don't think anyone is arguing that players shouldn't be involved in the game or have a say in what happens. I think most people are arguing about whether that say should come through the abilities of their PC's or whether it should come through meta-gaming on the part of the player.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 31, 2011)

wedgeski said:


> I'm a bit bemused by this conversation. According to some definitions here, it seems to that asking things like: "Can I roll Streetwise to find a vendor who'll give me good coin for these scriptures?" or "Can I find a navigator who knows these shores better than the Dread Pirate Roberts?" will grant unacceptable levels of narrative control to the player.




I don't think this is correct. First, I think many don't consider what you just posted above to be narrative control. Second I think what some are saying is that if the DM has decided, regardless of whether the PC's are aware of the state or not, that these things do not exist... then they do not exist. If there is no shortcut, you cannot find it... regardless of your knowledge of vendors, navigation or whatever. 



wedgeski said:


> This is just my own style of play, naturally, but I would consider an outright "No" to either of those questions to be an unacceptable impediment to player involvement in my game.




Why? Does the fact that a players first solution to a problem is not viable eliminate other possible solutions? What if those scrolls he is selling are religious texts and while worthless to the average vendor would be quite coveted by a particular church? Or what if you can find a navigator who *claims* to know the shores better than Dread Roberts? If you have already decided these things I think it can create a more interesting and involved game to keep these boundaries in place as opposed to saying yes to whatever the PC's are trying to do. YMMV of course. 



wedgeski said:


> The original question, of whether a PC familiar with a city might know a better route out than the villain, is to me the gold standard of giving players the *tools* they need to play the game well. I can conceive of no map that would illustrate everything the DM needed to say "No" to that question. No hidden sewer? No rat run? No abandoned basement known by the local pick-pockets as a short-cut? No washing line triple-strung deliberately across Main Street so the local urchins could give the town guard the slip?




How about no, you don't know a better route... but by using your physical and mental abilities you may be able to navigate the same road quicker than the villian? Skill challenge time!!! IMO, this would be much more interesting than a Streetwise roll that pawns the escape... and the PC's still have tools to play the game well. I'm not saying every idea should be turned down... but I don't believe say yes always creates the most interesting game either.


----------



## Janx (Oct 31, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I don't think this is correct. First, I think many don't consider what you just posted above to be narrative control. Second I think what some are saying is that if the DM has decided, regardless of whether the PC's are aware of the state or not, that these things do not exist... then they do not exist. If there is no shortcut, you cannot find it... regardless of your knowledge of vendors, navigation or whatever.




just a note, wedegeski was observing the same thing.  I believe you misunderstood his point.  At this point in the conversation, you, myself, hussar and wedgeski and probably some others have all noted that there are differing definitions of Narrative Control.  W was then pointing out that whatever it's called, trying to find a shorter path is not a negative player behavior.



Imaro said:


> Why? Does the fact that a players first solution to a problem is not viable eliminate other possible solutions? What if those scrolls he is selling are religious texts and while worthless to the average vendor would be quite coveted by a particular church? Or what if you can find a navigator who *claims* to know the shores better than Dread Roberts? If you have already decided these things I think it can create a more interesting and involved game to keep these boundaries in place as opposed to saying yes to whatever the PC's are trying to do. YMMV of course.




it really is quite possible that the answer is no.  Especially if the player asks the question at the wrong time and place (perhaps being a dork). 

Perhaps  point A and Point B are in a straight line down a straight non busy street and that therefore there is no faster way.

For me, I seperate the outcome or actuality of the player request or proposal as the DM's decision domain.  He might outsource it to a die roll, but it's his call.

I don't consider it abusive for players to ask if things exist, especially when it is reasonable that they could exist and the GM simply hasn't mentioned it yet because he hadn't considered it.  

It's not like he has notes that say:
 the BBEG is running to point B.  he is not walking, galloping, prancing, meandering, hopping or skipping.  He does not trip over stones because the street is smoothly paved.  There are no salesman on this street to sell old documents to, nor are there any sailors who are better than the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Therefore lacking such notes that negate any question asked thus far, the GM has to decide if it exists or not.  Which is fine.  though saying Yes would probably make things more interesting an reduce RR danger, as the players would be enabled to try somethingg NOT on the DM notes.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Oct 31, 2011)

Janx said:


> It's not like he has notes that say:
> the BBEG is running to point B. he is not walking, galloping, prancing, meandering, hopping or skipping. He does not trip over stones because the street is smoothly paved. There are no salesman on this street to sell old documents to, nor are there any sailors who are better than the Dread Pirate Roberts.
> 
> Therefore lacking such notes that negate any question asked thus far, the GM has to decide if it exists or not. Which is fine. though saying Yes would probably make things more interesting an reduce RR danger, as the players would be enabled to try somethingg NOT on the DM notes.




Heh, I'm not usually that explicit, but I do, in effect, often have notes that say that kind of things. See, the players that frequent groups that fit my style tend to like both some narrative control and some firm limits to push against. So I'll tend to farm out narrative control in some places, but in others run something a bit more traditional.

And I'm not merely talking narrative control in terms even vaguely related to player agency, but rather the player actually taking control over the story. I have no preference one way or the other whether the captured goblin prisoners will be willing to travel with the party, teaching the party fluent goblin in the process, in return for a negotiated peace on the border. So if a player wants to pursue that storyline, I'll let them. It might not work out (as I'll monitor behavior from the goblins' perspective), but I really don't care. In effect, the player is setting up her own challenge, in a manner that interests her. I'm enthusiastic about *that*, even if not the details in this case.

OTOH, I'll have those firm limits. The legendary axe, the "wood wight," is in a particular location. Trying to find it are the party, a rival party, a group of elves, some trolls, and the aforementioned goblins. That's firm on my part. No amount of player narrative is going to short-circuit that process, because that is the challenge for the whole party. Player agency via the character can (and probably will) handle each part of the challenge as it arises. Player agency may manage a "divide and conquer" strategy to make the challenges easier, or something else. But there will be no player narration that escapes or otherwise nullifies the challenge.

I'm not particularly wedded to this odd mix from a game theory angle, but it does seem to work for us. It gives the players that want to truly narrate some room to play, which also takes a lot of the prep work off of me. Meanwhile, since I can focus my prep on those handful of things with firm limits, I do a better job with them. And some of the players feel like this gives the world more nuance, as part of what their characters do is push, and see what pushes back. 

So I'm fine with saying yes most of the time. I'm not fine with *making* something work, or trying hard to give it a chance to work, *merely* because a player asked. That they asked is a sign of interest, but it might be the interest of, "I want to find where the world pushes back." (What I do instead, when a player has a great, flavorful idea, on an aspect that is firm--I make a note, and use that idea as the basis for something else firm in the near future, but unrelated to the current challenge.)

So, in regards to the OP, I could go either way.  If I have in my notes that the route chosen by the NPC is the shortest route, then that means that it is the shortest route.  If the NPC is reasonably intelligent, and had this planned, then that becomes one of those firm limits.  You can chase him on that route, but if you try to go some other way to head him off, it won't work.  He outsmarted you here.  OTOH, if I have no such plans, then I don't care what happens, as long as they players enjoy him.  They can try to head him off, or whatever.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 31, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> As for consistency? Well if anything, it limits the characters ability to be heroic which isn't very consistent in a setting which considers said character to be a hero.




That is an assumption every setting does not make. All that is required for heroism is the desire and dedication to do it. As far as I am concerned the setting considers the PCs to be the focus of play. Thier heroism (or lack of it) must come from them. 

How exactly does the lack of an ability to create bits of setting on the fly limit a character's ability to be heroic? 

Does a world that constantly lowers the difficulty bar specifically to enable heroic actions sound very heroic?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Does a world that constantly lowers the difficulty bar specifically to enable heroic actions sound very heroic?




Given that some found it important that there be differentiation between the actions of the character and the actions of the player in this discussion, we should perhaps strive to be consistent.  This isn't the world lowering the bar.  The world is not taking an action.  The GM is making a choice.  If the GM does so consistently, always to the same level, then bar is not "constantly lowering", it is staying constantly in the same place.  

"Heroic" has many meanings, and there are many standards for heroism.  In terms of the sci-fi and fantasy genres, "heroic fiction" has a particular meaning that differs from what we consider "heroic" in the real world.  Characters in heroic fiction pull off feats that simply aren't possible in the real world - see the film "The Last Action Hero" for some explication on that front.  Some of the tropes of heroic fiction call for GM assistance to pull off - allowing the player to have some authorial control is one form of assistance that can often help.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 31, 2011)

I love players having narrative control -from both a DM and player standpoint. 

In fact my favorite system (Fate) gives tons of narrative control to the players.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 31, 2011)

Rechan said:


> I love players having narrative control -from both a DM and player standpoint.
> 
> In fact my favorite system (Fate) gives tons of narrative control to the players.




I too enjoy it in systems that are designed for and around it.  Throwing it into games that aren't... I've got mixed feelings on.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 31, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Does a world that constantly lowers the difficulty bar specifically to enable heroic actions sound very heroic?



Yes.

Captain Jack Sparrow can grab a rope in one hand, cut another rope with his cutlass and then fly pretty much wherever he wants. Normal people can't do that, even in the world of Pirates of the Caribbean. That's part of what makes Jack a hero.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 31, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yes.
> 
> Captain Jack Sparrow can grab a rope in one hand, cut another rope with his cutlass and then fly pretty much wherever he wants. Normal people can't do that, even in the world of Pirates of the Caribbean. That's part of what makes Jack a hero.




I think much of this depends on the style of adventure people expect from D&D. For some reason this is a style of play I associate more with something like Savage Worlds than D&D. Dungeons and Dragons has never struck me as highly cinematic, so I don't tend to play it that way. On the other hands, I do love Pirates of the Caribbean and would happily play a campaign modeled after the movies using Savage Worlds.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 31, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think much of this depends on the style of adventure people expect from D&D. For some reason this is a style of play I associate more with something like Savage Worlds than D&D. Dungeons and Dragons has never struck me as highly cinematic, so I don't tend to play it that way. On the other hands, I do love Pirates of the Caribbean and would happily play a campaign modeled after the movies using Savage Worlds.




Yeah... I keep wondering when John McClane and The Last Action Hero became the new archetypes for fantasy heroes?


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 31, 2011)

Mort said:


> In another thread (which I won't link to because it's really, really long and not on this topic) I posted the following . . .



I read your linked post and noticed that you edited part of it out. Here's the post with the edited bit restored.







Mort said:


> *A D&D game is not a novel.  The characters are not (and should not be) merely pawns to be molded by an all-knowing writer. IMO any DM that thinks he and only he should have any control over the shape and direction of the game world is depriving both himself and his players.*
> 
> I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.
> 
> ...



I agree that roleplaying games are not novels, but describing the adventurers as "pawns" molded by an "all-knowing writer" strikes me as pretty over-the-top and nothing like the relationship I experience between referee and players in traditional roleplaying games.

Perhaps more importantly, the players and their characters possess the means to change "the shape and direction of the game-world" through their in-character decisions. What they don't have in the campaigns I run is the ability to edit the setting through _out_-of-character choices.

The presumption here is that players _want_ to be able to create setting details in actual play. Slipping off my Viking hatfor a moment, as a _player_ what I want from a roleplaying game is the opportunity to experience the world through the eyes of my character. I want my control to extend to the things my character senses and manipulates, and no further. Creating setting details at the meta level actually detracts from that; my experience is no longer one of exploring the game-world through my character-avatar when I can make a candlestick conveniently appear when needed by spending a drama point.

It isn't about "all knowing" control at all, but rather how the players engage the game-world in their imagination and what they want to experience from it. 

With respect to the example of the adventurer attempting to find an alternate route, I think the player's question is a perfectly reasonable one; it's the kind of question that comes up in my campaign pretty often, and while sometimes there's a roll involved, most of the time, the answer is, "From living in Paris, you know that . . . ."

The idea that the game-world as represented by the map is inherently malleable, that it exists only in the broadest possible strokes until the players interact with it at which point details appear, assumes that there is no setting which exists independent of the characters. I don't think that presumption is true for all games at all.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Oct 31, 2011)

In 7th Sea, I give the players the "Since Clause."  It goes something like this, "Since I'm standing next to the rope holding the chandelier, I'll cut it and send it crashing down on the brutes."  In a chase scene, a Hero might say "since I'm running past a fruit stand."  The Since Clause is method to populate the scene based on good ideas from both the Heroes and the GM (and keeps me from having to detail the position of every item in the scene).  Major props I'll point out at the start of any given scene or when asked.

Now, 7th Sea is a cinematic game, so I don't mind giving the players limited control over their environment.  There are limits, but if it's plausible I run with it.  I haven't ever tried it in other games.


----------



## Janx (Oct 31, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> With respect to the example of the adventurer attempting to find an alternate route, I think the player's question is a perfectly reasonable one; it's the kind of question that comes up in my campaign pretty often, and while sometimes there's a roll involved, most of the time, the answer is, "From living in Paris, you know that . . . ."
> 
> The idea that the game-world as represented by the map is inherently malleable, that it exists only in the broadest possible strokes until the players interact with it at which point details appear, assumes that there is no setting which exists independent of the characters. I don't think that presumption is true for all games at all.




Good points.

Is there a functional difference from asking if something exists because the player wants to know so the PC can use it, or if the player is trying to make it exist so the PC can use it?

I take it as a given that for any location, the GM is not fully and completely detailing everything.  Therefore when I say, "you burst out the side door onto the street, it's bustling with merchants and shoppers.  You can just barely see Snidely Whiplash's top-hat bobbing through the crowd as he makes his escape."

I haven't named the street, or described the social class of the people, their clothes, or the nature of the shops or carts (if there are any), nor even fully how crowded the street is.  As a GM, I may not even have thought to do that.

So if a player asks if there's a shortcut, or if there's a rock or an apple from a vendor he can throw, sure he's hoping the answer is yes, and that in some meta-game concept he is 'creating content' that I hadn't.

If the players aren't asking for stupid stuff (can I swing from the chandelier hanging over the street and tackle Snidely?) this doesn't seem out of bounds for any of the questions the player is asking.

I figure every question is to gain information so as to enable them to manipulate the game world to their advantage.  Given the difficulty in converying absolute detail, it seems a natural give-and-take component to the RPG concept.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Of course not. Please don't reduce this conversation into hyperbole or an argument. And, if you insist on it, please take it up with someone else.




It's not hyperbolic. When I asked which element of setting, out of all the things that make up a setting, gets priority you said the map. 



> Are you attacking my taste? Because that'd be amusing.




No, I'm saying that your argument for taste is arbitrary. All arguments that boil down to, my taste, are arbitrary and aren't really constructive in getting your point across.



> What? I assume you're not in favor of PCs hitting the enemy every attack roll.




Actually, I am very much in favour of that. I have no problem with systems that balance a very high strike rate with damage reduction and other such methods.



> ... when did I say you're opinion wasn't right?




When you said you disagreed and presented your reasons why. If you just want people to "play what they want" then why bother replying beyond your initial post? It's confusing, on one hand you seem to want a response but then curtail it with your catchphrase there.



ExploderWizard said:


> That is an assumption every setting does  not make. All that is required for heroism is the desire and dedication  to do it. As far as I am concerned the setting considers the PCs to be  the focus of play. Thier heroism (or lack of it) must come from them.
> 
> How exactly does the lack of an ability to create bits of setting on the fly limit a character's ability to be heroic?
> 
> Does a world that constantly lowers the difficulty bar specifically to enable heroic actions sound very heroic?




I agree, the heroism comes from the PCs actions, like having the foresight to cut off the bad guy at the pass.

It limits their ability to be heroic because they are boxed into being incompetent. 

Giving the PCs the ability to catch a bad guy is hardly lowering any metaphysical bar.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 31, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The player did not alter the reality.  The player examined the reality through his character and chose a goal that, given his skills, location, and purpose, should be accomplishable.
> 
> That is character agency.



Exactly. Can't XP.



Fanaelialae said:


> If this is the case, I don't see how your complaint about "warped reality"  tracks.



I don't know how I can help you, here. I've been bad at communication recently.



> If you never use maps, and constantly ad lib, then your campaign's reality is in a constant state of flux.  Plenty of things aren't fixed until they are observed (by the PCs).



No, it's not in a constant state of flux. Yes, you're right, plenty of things aren't fixed until they are observed. Just like every campaign.



> Ad lib is making it up as you go along.  You might have guidelines in your head, things you've decided upon beforehand, but plenty of things won't be decided until the players think to ask.  Hence, if a player in your campaign asked whether he can cut the villain off by running across the nearby rooftops, I expect you might let him.  Perhaps not if the area has been described as a cluster of towers, but probably so if it were a packed group of low houses.



I might let him, yep. Depends on what guidelines I have in my head. Odds are, it'd come down to a roll or rolls, just like I agreed with pemerton on.



> Now, if you have a map of the town and the villain takes off down the main thoroughfare, and your map might allow a faster path if it showed the rooftops (but it isn't that detailed), would you still consider it "warping reality" and ban it out of hand?  Would your answer still be the same if we accepted the premise, that you'd probably allow the attempt if there hadn't been a map.



I'd make it come down to rolls, probably. I'd allow the players to roll to see if there was a faster route, and if they succeeded on the check, I'd probably let them know whether there was on or not. If there was, then the rolls would probably be easier.



> If you were forced to play with a rough map of a tavern (that showed tables but no chairs) and a player wanted his character to pick up a chair and smack someone with it, would you deny him the ability to grab a chair because it isn't on the map?



No, that's ridiculous, and I feel like that's obvious. There's a huge difference between a town map and a tavern map. That'd be like saying, "the continental map shows everything, and this looks like the most direct route. However, it doesn't show any game or wild vegetation. Can they not gather food?" Of course they can gather food. However, when it comes to the most direct route, the map will give an extremely good indication of what that is.



> What if, same scenario, you'd already read a flavor text description of patrons sitting on low-backed bar stools?



If all there was were bar stools, then of course there would be no chairs. Why would there suddenly be?



> Personally, I think this just demonstrates your preferred play style.



I agree, which is why I said that.



> You don't use maps, therefore you haven't had to deal with the issue of a poorly detailed map.  I think if you ever do run a module with a poor map, you'll find that forcing the players to cleave to such a poor model of reality will result in a poor game.



I'll take you up on that bet. I have absolutely no lack of confidence when it comes to running games. I'm at capacity for players right now (I won't run more than six players), but the two newest players left their other groups to play, and I'm stuck GMing because the other players feel intimidated by my GMing and/or have tried and didn't feel like they didn't measure up. Hell, I wrote a chapter in my RPG's book about running a game to get them to try, I've encouraged them to try or encouraged them when they were trying to run a game, and I still end up running the games.

I'm not afraid of ever running a poor game. But, hey, I probably would to people who wanted a more narrative approach. Just goes to show my style is crappy to certain people, huh? As always, play what you like 



wedgeski said:


> I'm a bit bemused by this conversation. According to some definitions here, it seems to that asking things like: "Can I roll Streetwise to find a vendor who'll give me good coin for these scriptures?" or "Can I find a navigator who knows these shores better than the Dread Pirate Roberts?" will grant unacceptable levels of narrative control to the player.
> 
> This is just my own style of play, naturally, but I would consider an outright "No" to either of those questions to be an unacceptable impediment to player involvement in my game.



I think what we have here is two different definitions. Asking to do something with your character isn't narrative control to me or some others in this thread (as indicated by Nagol's quote at the top of this post). A player creating a shortcut with a high check, however, does have narrative control, and that kind of "warping reality" doesn't work for some groups (I put "warping reality in quotes for a reason... it should be obvious based on the thread I assume you've read). As always, play what you like 




Janx said:


> just a note, wedegeski was observing the same thing.  I believe you misunderstood his point.  At this point in the conversation, you, myself, hussar and wedgeski and probably some others have all noted that there are differing definitions of Narrative Control.  W was then pointing out that whatever it's called, trying to find a shorter path is not a negative player behavior.



I felt that he was saying that people were saying it was negative behavior (thus his amusement with the conversation). I probably missed where someone said that people trying to find a shorter path is wrong. Do you know what post that was implied?




> I don't consider it abusive for players to ask if things exist, especially when it is reasonable that they could exist and the GM simply hasn't mentioned it yet because he hadn't considered it.
> 
> It's not like he has notes that say:
> the BBEG is running to point B.  he is not walking, galloping, prancing, meandering, hopping or skipping.  He does not trip over stones because the street is smoothly paved.  There are no salesman on this street to sell old documents to, nor are there any sailors who are better than the Dread Pirate Roberts.
> ...



See, I feel like you can be told "no" and not be railroaded. To be railroaded, there has to be a specific outcome the players are be herded towards. I can make a judgment call without that in mind. I'm playing in an extremely open sandbox-style game. I'm here to play everyone else in the world, and to make judgment calls about the game (and do other things like help the players feel immersed, etc.). I'm not here to screw over the players, nor am I here to help them succeed. I'm just here to impartially give them answers.

To that end, when I say "no", it's not so that they're stay on the rails. It's because that's how the world is currently arrayed in my mind, and that's how internal consistency works to me. Perhaps if the game was more focused on storyline, then yes, it's probably closer to staying on the rails. If that's the case, though, I'd expect the villain to adapt, head to a different location, not be caught anyways, etc. There's plenty of ways for someone to railroad if that's what they're going for.

Just my perspective on it, as a sandbox GM. As always, play what you like 



Janx said:


> Good points.
> 
> Is there a functional difference from asking if something exists because the player wants to know so the PC can use it, or if the player is trying to make it exist so the PC can use it?



Very much so, in my experience. In my Mutants and Masterminds 2e game, I'll let players blow Hero Points to say, "good thing I remembered to bring [insert exceptionally convenient thing]!" and it's a lot of fun. However, the point of that game when we play is to mimic a cool comic book-like story, not to immerse.

In my Children of Arrash game, if a player asked the question of whether or not something is possible, it's so that he knows how he can act in-game. Yes, he's hoping it'll work out for him, but narrative control trumping the internal consistency of the setting would bring the player out of immersion.

Two different goals, there.




> So if a player asks if there's a shortcut, or if there's a rock or an apple from a vendor he can throw, sure he's hoping the answer is yes, and that in some meta-game concept he is 'creating content' that I hadn't.
> 
> If the players aren't asking for stupid stuff (can I swing from the chandelier hanging over the street and tackle Snidely?) this doesn't seem out of bounds for any of the questions the player is asking.



I really don't know who is asking for players not to ask that question. We just disagree on what whether or not that form of "creating content" is narrative control. I sincerely think it isn't at all.



> I figure every question is to gain information so as to enable them to manipulate the game world to their advantage.  Given the difficulty in converying absolute detail, it seems a natural give-and-take component to the RPG concept.



I agree. And you can do that by allowing my definition of narrative control, or not. You can allow the checks themselves to modify the game world, or you can just use them to focus the game world enough to answer the question. Two different methods, and neither are objectively wrong. But, people definitely have preferences, or we wouldn't have this thread. As always, play what you like 



Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> It's not hyperbolic. When I asked which element of setting, out of all the things that make up a setting, gets priority you said the map.



No, you didn't ask that. You asked what was more important: the map, or the tone and ability for characters to be heroic. I said the map, because it doesn't preclude heroic characters, nor does it break internal consistency. Had I chosen "the tone and ability for characters to be heroic," I'd be breaking internal consistency.



> No, I'm saying that your argument for taste is arbitrary. All arguments that boil down to, my taste, are arbitrary and aren't really constructive in getting your point across.



That's all this entire conversation is. It's not "who's right and who's wrong." If you want to argue about whether or not narrative control for players is objectively right, good luck with that. I won't engage with it, because it's a matter of taste. Preference. That's all.



> Actually, I am very much in favour of that. I have no problem with systems that balance a very high strike rate with damage reduction and other such methods.



Again, that's a "very high strike rate" (which implies not 100%) and also a way to make characters "less heroic" (their damage getting reduced). It's a different form of game balance, and arguably equally as effective, but it's still stopping a character from doing something outright heroic right now, which seems to be your objection. I don't see how they're different.



> When you said you disagreed and presented your reasons why. If you just want people to "play what they want" then why bother replying beyond your initial post? It's confusing, on one hand you seem to want a response but then curtail it with your catchphrase there.



I'd definitely like a conversation. A discussion. Not an argument. This entire conversation is about what each person prefers, and why. That's a discussion of taste. To that end, all I can do is say, "I don't see it that way, and here's why I think so. Now can you see why my players wouldn't like things the way you do?" Does that make sense? _I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're playing incorrectly. I'm saying I like playing differently, and why that is._



> I agree, the heroism comes from the PCs actions, like having the foresight to cut off the bad guy at the pass.
> 
> It limits their ability to be heroic because they are boxed into being incompetent.
> 
> Giving the PCs the ability to catch a bad guy is hardly lowering any metaphysical bar.



Why is the only way to catch him cutting him off? Why is being defeated disqualify you from being a hero? Let's go over all the heroes we can, and think of one who is never defeated, or who never suffers a setback.

I'm thought about it for about one minute, but I'm blank so far. I can't think of one hero who never suffers a setback. Can you think of any? Let me know if you can. I'm assuming there's going to be quite a few if it's enough to justify "heroic actions" in a game, not just one instance.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Mort (Oct 31, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I read your linked post and noticed that you edited part of it out. Here's the post with the edited bit restored.
> I agree that roleplaying games are not novels, but describing the adventurers as "pawns" molded by an "all-knowing writer" strikes me as pretty over-the-top and nothing like the relationship I experience between referee and players in traditional roleplaying games..




The original begining to the respons was meant to be a bit over the top in response to BryanD's post. I felt it was a little to confrontational and did not add enough to the topic, so I edited it out when reposting.



The Shaman said:


> Perhaps more importantly, the players and their characters possess the means to change "the shape and direction of the game-world" through their in-character decisions. What they don't have in the campaigns I run is the ability to edit the setting through _out_-of-character choices...




I'm not so sure the two are as different as you present them. The character is still making in character decisions - it's just that the player has a greater than 0% influence on whether he can infuence the setting re: those decisions. And frankly all I've been talking about here is the ability for the player to infuence a situation where the DM has not set things firmly in stone - It's just that rather then the DM coming up with an explanation, the player does.




The Shaman said:


> The presumption here is that players _want_ to be able to create setting details in actual play. Slipping off my Viking hatfor a moment, as a _player_ what I want from a roleplaying game is the opportunity to experience the world through the eyes of my character. I want my control to extend to the things my character senses and manipulates, and no further. Creating setting details at the meta level actually detracts from that; my experience is no longer one of exploring the game-world through my character-avatar when I can make a candlestick conveniently appear when needed by spending a drama point.




I think you have a valid point re: setting details that are known. If I walk into a room that is fully realised (the DM has already described it and stated what I said is what you get etc.) I need a candle stick, there is no candle stick - but I use a fate point to suddently "find" a candle stick - that can certainly be a distraction. And I can easily see how that's not to many people's tastes.




The Shaman said:


> It isn't about "all knowing" control at all, but rather how the players engage the game-world in their imagination and what they want to experience from it.




Yes. and sometimes the DM does not fully describe or give enough of a situation/setting - the player wants more out of it. If the DM lets the player add that "more" himself it can really be a win/win.

Though certainly, as with much else, this is a taste issue. You've already stated that this interferes with your world and setting enjoyment - so clearly this should be brought up ahead of time in any campaign to make sure players are on the same page.



The Shaman said:


> With respect to the example of the adventurer attempting to find an alternate route, I think the player's question is a perfectly reasonable one; it's the kind of question that comes up in my campaign pretty often, and while sometimes there's a roll involved, most of the time, the answer is, "From living in Paris, you know that . . . ."
> 
> The idea that the game-world as represented by the map is inherently malleable, that it exists only in the broadest possible strokes until the players interact with it at which point details appear, assumes that there is no setting which exists independent of the characters. I don't think that presumption is true for all games at all.




It does not assume that no setting exists outside of the characters, far from it. It assumes that the setting cannot be *fully* known or experienced until the characters interact with it because it is constantly changing (as real worlds are wont to do).

The players seeing a living, breathing world, one that looks like it will move forward regardless of their presense in it, is great. One way to accomplish this is with small details that change. 

For example the villain is fleeing down the most direct path but - there just so happens to be a fruit vender there that will force him to veer and cost valuable time. The PC uses this opportunity to gain ground on/catch the villain (through an alternate path or using the roofs, or whatever). 

The cart is a small detail - the question at hand (as I see it) is: Does only the DM have the right to place the cart? Or does he let the players (under certain conditions) place the cart as well?

Spelling it out like that, I can see how some people can be rubbed the wrong way. In many minds either the DM puts the fruit cart there or nobody; the players role as the character is to chase the villain and hope to catch him, using the environment as presented the characters best ability.

Ultimately *I* prefer to let the player have a say here, but yes it's clearly a YMMV situation.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> No, you didn't ask that. You asked what was more important: the map, or the tone and ability for characters to be heroic. I said the map, because it doesn't preclude heroic characters, nor does it break internal consistency. Had I chosen "the tone and ability for characters to be heroic," I'd be breaking internal consistency.




No, I didn't. I said which part of setting trumps another after I gave an example of how setting is more than a map. It also, does not break internal consistency. 




> That's all this entire conversation is. It's not "who's right and who's wrong." If you want to argue about whether or not narrative control for players is objectively right, good luck with that. I won't engage with it, because it's a matter of taste. Preference. That's all.




I know that. It's implied but explicitly stating it makes your argument arbitrary. How is anybody going to reply when you just keep repeating your mantra while making your points? It's pretty futile when you just clam up and keep chanting "my taste, my taste, my taste" in response to criticism of your points.



> Again, that's a "very high strike rate" (which implies not 100%) and also a way to make characters "less heroic" (their damage getting reduced). It's a different form of game balance, and arguably equally as effective, but it's still stopping a character from doing something outright heroic right now, which seems to be your objection. I don't see how they're different.




Not at all. There is nothing unheroic about hitting armour (DR) or getting parried. "You miss, next" is very unheroic however.



> I'd definitely like a conversation. A discussion. Not an argument. This entire conversation is about what each person prefers, and why. That's a discussion of taste. To that end, all I can do is say, "I don't see it that way, and here's why I think so. Now can you see why my players wouldn't like things the way you do?" Does that make sense? _I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're playing incorrectly. I'm saying I like playing differently, and why that is._




Okay player. Perhaps if you want to have a conservation you should stop opting out every other point. It really is quite confusing.




> Why is the only way to catch him cutting him off? Why is being defeated disqualify you from being a hero? Let's go over all the heroes we can, and think of one who is never defeated, or who never suffers a setback.




It doesn't have to be the only way. It's the way that a player has suggested. Your argument is about boxing the player into paths you have predetermined.



> I'm thought about it for about one minute, but I'm blank so far. I can't think of one hero who never suffers a setback. Can you think of any? Let me know if you can. I'm assuming there's going to be quite a few if it's enough to justify "heroic actions" in a game, not just one instance.




Perhaps you are drawing a blank because this is a strawman argument designed to discredit the "hero's are not incompetent" argument.  We are not talking about a setback. We are talking about a player with a suggestion that they evidently think will be fun and allow their character to contribute. Boxing them in to distinct paths of failure is robbing them of that ability.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> No, I didn't. I said which part of setting trumps another after I gave an example of how setting is more than a map. It also, does not break internal consistency.



You said:


Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> The map is one part of setting, not setting as a whole. The tone and ability for characters to be heroic is also setting. So which element of setting trumps another?



I said: "the map." I answered your question, which is directly above this sentence.



> I know that. It's implied but explicitly stating it makes your argument arbitrary. How is anybody going to reply when you just keep repeating your mantra while making your points? It's pretty futile when you just clam up and keep chanting "my taste, my taste, my taste" in response to criticism of your points.



So, by me expressing my opinion, and me saying, "I understand you like something different, so play that", I'm participating in a futile conversation? No, that's not how I see it. I see that as an exchange of ideas and opinions. That's healthy conversation. You don't need to argue to have a productive conversation.



> Not at all. There is nothing unheroic about hitting armour (DR) or getting parried. "You miss, next" is very unheroic however.



Many people now interpret AC as being parried or hitting armor. This is your interpretation, and that's fine, but I really, really disagree with your assessment of what constitutes "unheroic". Your mileage has varied.



> Okay player. Perhaps if you want to have a conservation you should stop opting out every other point. It really is quite confusing.



Haha  Okay, what have I avoided?



> It doesn't have to be the only way. It's the way that a player has suggested. Your argument is about boxing the player into paths you have predetermined.



When did I say this, or even imply it? Because I'm pretty sure I can point out where I'd let them look into it, or come up with other methods. Heck, I even said in this thread how I'd probably handle it.



> Perhaps you are drawing a blank because this is a strawman argument designed to discredit the "hero's are not incompetent" argument.  We are not talking about a setback. We are talking about a player with a suggestion that they evidently think will be fun and allow their character to contribute. Boxing them in to distinct paths of failure is robbing them of that ability.



Why is it boxing them into paths of failure? Why can't they succeed in a different manner, or at a different time? Why can't they fail?

It's not a strawman. I'm saying that it's okay to fail as a hero. I'm saying that it's _normal_ to fail as a hero. I think that your argument of "if the player thinks up a way to catch the villain, he should get to" is going against the trope of heroes losing or suffering setbacks. I think you're painting it in a very black or white, limited way, and I don't think it should be.

But that's just my opinion. It's my preference, and I can see where you're coming from. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> You said:
> 
> I said: "the map." I answered your question, which is directly above this sentence.




I'll have to draw a line under that because I'll just be repeating myself.



> So, by me expressing my opinion, and me saying, "I understand you like something different, so play that", I'm participating in a futile conversation? No, that's not how I see it. I see that as an exchange of ideas and opinions. That's healthy conversation. You don't need to argue to have a productive conversation.



Do not make critical assessments if you're not trying to argue a point. 



> Many people now interpret AC as being parried or hitting armor. This is your interpretation, and that's fine, but I really, really disagree with your assessment of what constitutes "unheroic". Your mileage has varied.



This is an example of a critical statement which is then contradicted by another strawman. Since you're not arguing a point, I won't clarify your assumptions. 

[/QUOTE]Haha  Okay, what have I avoided?[/QUOTE]

Any form of response. No matter what I say in reply, you will just keep chanting "my taste". 



> When did I say this, or even imply it? Because I'm pretty sure I can point out where I'd let them look into it, or come up with other methods. Heck, I even said in this thread how I'd probably handle it.



When you said that you had to keep "internal consistency" by referencing a predetermined map.



> Why is it boxing them into paths of failure? Why can't they succeed in a different manner, or at a different time? Why can't they fail?




I'll draw a line under this one as well, since I'll just be repeating myself.


> It's not a strawman.



Yes it is.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The player did not alter the reality.  The player examined the reality through his character and chose a goal that, given his skills, location, and purpose, *should be accomplishable.
> *(bold mine)
> That is character agency.




Of course the player altered reality.  Was there an option to change the computer program before the player came up with the plan?  If there wasn't, then the player has just changed reality - he added something that wasn't there previously.  See, you added in the point, "should be accomplishable".  According to whom?  The DM typically.  So, the DM is adding elements to the game world that weren't there before to accommodate a request from the player that is reasonable.  That's narrative control by definition.

If the option was there beforehand, then fine, it's not narrative control, it's character agency.  However, adding the option is not character agency.  The character cannot add that option.  Only the DM can add that option (or sometimes the player, depending on the system).  IOW, the option is being added, distinct from any actions that character could possibly take.  And the reason this option is being added is because of the suggestions of the player.  Again, that's narrative control.

Basically, we're down to dueling definitions.  If "narrative control" is only when players outright contradict existing, known reality, then of course it would be bad because it's inconsistent.  However, as has been shown in this thread, most people do not define "narrative control" in such an extreme fashion.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Any form of response. No matter what I say in reply, you will just keep chanting "my taste".



I really don't think you're being anywhere near as clear as you think you are. At any rate, I'm not here to argue. I've avoided arguing "no, it's not a strawman" because that won't help a productive dialogue, which is what I've indicated I want this to remain in this thread (it's one of the first things I said). So, if you want the last word, go ahead and take it. I don't want to derail this thread or argue with you, and I don't feel like you're trying to have a discussion.

You're not wrong to have your preferences, and I'm glad you get to have fun in the game. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I really don't think you're being anywhere near as clear as you think you are.




An appeal to your taste does not strengthen what you are saying. All it does it say, there's nothing much you can say because I'm set in my tastes. That makes it nigh impossible to address your criticisms because you're unwilling to accept anything else under the pretense of personal taste.

It's double hard when you misrepresent me by asserting what I meant instead of taking my word for it.

Clear enough?


----------



## chaochou (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say  the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that  one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few  minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.
> 
> The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm  intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good  shortcut that the villain doesn't."




The topic of giving narrative control to players is always interesting.

My take on it, though, is this example is not about narrative control. I don't recognise a streetwise roll to get ahead of a fleeing villain as controlling the narrative. It just lets me do what a streetwise roll might reasonably let me do.

If it went like this, as an example, I would call it as giving players narrative control:

GM: The ruffian bolts off down the street
Player: Okay, how about he drops his hat?
Other players: Hmm, or tears his cloak? Or drops a bit of parchment? A key?
GM: Actually parchment might be cool...
Player A: Right, so he drops a bit of parchment.
GM: Yeah, which is caught on the breeze and floats up to land on the roof of the Temple of Very Bad Things.
Player A: Awesome. Anyone know Gust of Wind?

And so on. The players introduce a new idea into game (fleeing villain drops something). The GM likes it. The GM twists that idea. The players like it. So, the 'narrative' has changed from 'chase the villain' to something else with everyone's agreement.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> I agree, the heroism comes from the PCs actions, like having the foresight to cut off the bad guy at the pass.
> 
> It limits their ability to be heroic because they are boxed into being incompetent.
> 
> Giving the PCs the ability to catch a bad guy is hardly lowering any metaphysical bar.




I fail to see how a PC becomes incompetent due to a lack of an ability that allows him/her to create setting reality on the fly. 

I suppose a fighter is incompetent unless he/she is unable to toss a fireball when it would be really helpful? 

PC competence is demonstrated by using the abilities and resources at hand as effectively as possible.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I fail to see how a PC becomes incompetent due to a lack of an ability that allows him/her to create setting reality on the fly.
> 
> I suppose a fighter is incompetent unless he/she is unable to toss a fireball when it would be really helpful?
> 
> PC competence is demonstrated by using the abilities and resources at hand as effectively as possible.




The PC isn't creating setting reality. The player and DM are, which is how RPGs work. 

Yeah and I suppose it's incompetent for a wizard not to be able to wield a sword with efficiency...oh wait.

Yeah and being able to successfully cut somebody off at the pass is a reasonable ability to be utilized.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> The PC isn't creating setting reality. The player and DM are, which is how RPGs work.
> 
> Yeah and I suppose it's incompetent for a wizard not to be able to wield a sword with efficiency...oh wait.
> 
> Yeah and being able to successfully cut somebody off at the pass is a reasonable ability to be utilized.




Only if such a pass and a route more direct but less travelled to it exist.  Otherwise, it is pretty unreasonable.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Only if such a pass and a route more direct but less travelled to it exist.  Otherwise, it is pretty unreasonable.




For me one of the key roles of the GM is determining whether such things exist when players ask based on his knowledge of the location and his common sense. It is certainly a reasonable request on the part of the player, and I think a short cut is likely to exist unless there is a reason it shouldn't. But for me the key thing that keeps this example outside the realm of narrative control is whether the GM has final or whether it boils down to the roll. Nothing wrong with either approach but I prefer the first option where the GM decides first if there is in fact a shortcut and the skill roll decides how well the pc can act on that.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Only if such a pass and a route more direct but less travelled to it exist.  Otherwise, it is pretty unreasonable.




If you're referring to the map as a draconian reality, then yeah not allowing for player suggestion is pretty unreasonable isn't it. http://thesaurus.com/browse/draconian


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> If you're referring to the map as a draconian reality, then yeah not allowing for player suggestion is pretty unreasonable isn't it. http://thesaurus.com/browse/draconian




Nope, just a different play style, one i prefer as a player, actually.  I much prefer using character agency (taking action and making choices as the character would) than using player agency (using tools and making decisions beyond the bounds of the character and acting as advocate for the character).


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Nope, just a different play style, one i prefer as a player, actually.  I much prefer using character agency (taking action and making choices as the character would) than using player agency (using tools and making decisions beyond the bounds of the character and acting as advocate for the character).




Those are made up terms that carry very little weight. You can't split character and player agency. You can't divorce yourself from the decision making process but I digress, If a character is a local then it's both character and player agency. If the character is streetwise then it is both character and player agency.

The whole concept remains unreasonable.


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> For me one of the key roles of the GM is determining whether such things exist when players ask based on his knowledge of the location and his common sense. It is certainly a reasonable request on the part of the player, and I think a short cut is likely to exist unless there is a reason it shouldn't. But for me the key thing that keeps this example outside the realm of narrative control is whether the GM has final or whether it boils down to the roll. Nothing wrong with either approach but I prefer the first option where the GM decides first if there is in fact a shortcut and the skill roll decides how well the pc can act on that.




Bingo! I'd give experience but have to spread some more around.

The truth of the matter is though, that often it makes little difference. Say the player wants to find an alternate route. the DM had not planned for one, but suddently changes his mind and *allows* (through a roll or not) the player to find one. 

Does the player have narrative control? No - because the DM decided there was a route; the player just found it. Is it basically the same thing as the player having narrative control? pretty much.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Those are made up terms that carry very little weight. You can't split character and player agency. You can't divorce yourself from the decision making process but I digress, If a character is a local then it's both character and player agency. If the character is streetwise then it is both character and player agency.
> 
> The whole concept remains unreasonable.




I'm having trouble teasing out the meaning.  I have no idea about the character being local or character is streetwise means.

I certainly can split character and player agency -- in fact I find it trivial.  If the character can conceive of it and can take action, it is character agency.

It the effect cannot be initiated by the character and is occurring because the player wants it to happen it is player agency.  A good example is the playing of a Whimsy Card by the player to affect the scene.  from the character's viewpoint, something marvelous may just have happened, but it wasn't caused by him.  another example would be the player expecting a short cut to appear that otherwise does not exist.

From the original example, it is character agency to ask to see if I know of a short cut and if I do for the character to take it.

It is player agency to expect, feel entitled to have, or negotiate with the DM for such a short cut to come into existence.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> Bingo! I'd give experience but have to spread some more around.
> 
> The truth of the matter is though, that often it makes little difference. Say the player wants to find an alternate route. the DM had not planned for one, but suddently changes his mind and *allows* (through a roll or not) the player to find one.
> 
> Does the player have narrative control? No - because the DM decided there was a route; the player just found it. Is it basically the same thing as the player having narrative control? pretty much.




Although the net result is the same, it is only the same because the player's hope meshed with the narrative controllers desires.  The player never had narrative control any more than the winner of a lottery had the ability to pick winning numbers.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I certainly can split character and player agency -- in fact I find it trivial.  If the character can conceive of it and can take action, it is character agency.




No you can't. You can't make a cognitive decision with out the player influencing the character. The character exists in the player's mind, you can't split the two. So it's okay if a character can conceive it...like being a local/streetwise dude who knows the alleyways?


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Although the net result is the same, it is only the same because the player's hope meshed with the narrative controllers desires.  The player never had narrative control any more than the winner of a lottery had the ability to pick winning numbers.




I defy you to find a lottery anywhere where the prospective player can look at the number picker/machine and say "hey I'd like you to pick these numbers (which conventiently are on my ticket)" and the number picker/machine  can say "ok your numbers are picked, you win!"

It is not the same because the DM can be influenced by the player (the big difference between narrative control or no is the DM as filter, but the size of the filter matters!) the picker/machine cannot be (or should not be, you hear stories).


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> No you can't. You can't make a cognitive decision with out the player influencing the character. The character exists in the player's mind, you can't split the two. So it's okay if a character can conceive it...like being a local/streetwise dude who knows the alleyways?




Please stop telling me I'm lying.  As I just said, I find it trivial to split player agency from character agency.

"I want X to happen.  Can the character make X happen?  No?  Can I as a player make X happen anyways? Yes.  OK X happens."

"I don't want X to happen, but it is in character to do X.  OK I guess I'll do X."

There you go.  Two examples of separation of player and character agencies.

Do I as a player have complete knowledge that my character has?  No, of course not.  That why asking someone who controls the situtaion if my character knows if X exists is character agency.  That request may request in yes, no, or maybe roll some dice.  If instead of asking I am suggesting/expecting the item to exist, I am trying to exert player agency.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> I defy you to find a lottery anywhere where the prospective player can look at the number picker/machine and say "hey I'd like you to pick these numbers (which conventiently are on my ticket)" and the number picker/machine  can say "ok your numbers are picked, you win!"
> 
> It is not the same because the DM can be influenced by the player (the big difference between narrative control or no is the DM as filter, but the size of the filter matters!) the picker/machine cannot be (or should not be, you hear stories).




I can point to a lot of lotteries like that, but they are all out of business now since the laws got tighened up!  Typically they worked in reverse -- see these numbers they won't come up!

Sure, the DM can be influenced, negotiated with, and otherwise influenced -- that's using player agency in a less formal manner.

You are engaged in affecting the world in a way your character (despite the number of prayers he may utter) cannot.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Please stop telling me I'm lying.  As I just said, I find it trivial to split player agency from character agency.




You're not giving examples of how you are splitting yourself from your character and how you (the player) are not influencing the character. It's you (the player) making the decisions the whole time. The character only exists in your head. 

If you decide to ask the DM, that's not character agency, that's you (the player) asking for an outside opinion just like it would be you (the player) suggesting the character know a shortcut to the DM.

There is no split between character and player here.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 1, 2011)

Me personally, it all comes down to a simple question as DM.  "What'll be more fun... catching and encountering the BBEG on the street or having him escape only to have to find him later?"  Map be damned, skill check be damned.  There are any number of reasons to explain or justify why the PCs could catch or could not catch the villain... and both they and I could rattle off dozens of reasons for either scenario.  Thus it all comes down to what would be more dramatically interesting, and that's why I as DM-with-full-plot-in-mind can make the judgement call whether an encounter in the street would make sense or be interesting.

Now for this specific instance that the OP suggested... I'd probably say that because the PC had a specific game element that had been established previously (that he was _intimately familiar with the city_-- which might mean it was a part of the character background he had created or something)... I'd let him make a role simply because he took the time to _create_ this game element as part of his character in the first place, and thus it would be more dramatically interesting for the player to know that his PC is really just that damn good when it comes to knowing the city by the back of his hand.  And if I (as DM) are not going to reward him for actually establishing something like this beforehand... then what possible reason would players have to ever detail their histories for me?  I'm basically telling them that I want backgrounds because that's the way character creation is supposed to happen... but don't expect them to actually have any meaningful impact on the game.  Not much of an incentive there to me.


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I can point to a lot of lotteries like that, but they are all out of business now since the laws got tighened up!  Typically they worked in reverse -- see these numbers they won't come up!
> 
> Sure, the DM can be influenced, negotiated with, and otherwise influenced -- that's using player agency in a less formal manner.
> 
> You are engaged in affecting the world in a way your character (despite the number of prayers he may utter) cannot.




Wait a minute, now I'm confused. 

If the player is actually affecting/influencing the setting (not the character the player) how is that not narrative control? We've already discussed the DM filter - in which I'll buy your player agency argument (the player is not exerting direct control but depending on the DM, though again in some circumstances , at least to me, it makes little actual difference).

But if the *player* in some way directly exerts control over the setting (the DM let him directly place a cart in the villains way etc.) he has some narrative control.

What am I missing here?

edit: ok re-reading your explanation, I think I get it. Player agency is another word for narrative control (yes?) but you prefer character agency - which is acting solely through the actions the characer not the player has control over.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> You're not giving examples of how you are splitting yourself from your character and how you (the player) are not influencing the character. It's you (the player) making the decisions the whole time. The character only exists in your head.
> 
> If you decide to ask the DM, that's not character agency, that's you (the player) asking for an outside opinion just like it would be the player suggesting the character know a shortcut to the DM.
> 
> There is no split between character and player here.




Agency means 'capacity to act'.  The first word is key.  It indicates where the action is emanating from.

If I limit those actions to the scope of activity that lies in the character's purview then the character is the one acting and the scene is resolved with character agency.  For example, running down an alleyway I know will get me closer to my target.  For the player to make these choices sometimes requires additional information from regarding the scene.  Asking if the character has particular knowledge is just asking for such a clarification.  It does not commit the character to action and offers no effect on the game world other than resolving an uncertainty.  How the the one in control of the scene chooses the answer is immaterial to me.  It could be written down, it could be probability based, it could be at his whim.

If I do not limit those actions in such a way then I'm acting as a player.  Some games have formal rules for such actions.  In those systems, I am free to tell the GM that I know a shortcut and am gaining on the target.  This may cost a player resource like a token, card play, or may grant the GM the ability to add a complication as he wishes depending on the game.

In some cases, I may be trying player agency less formally i.e. through negotiation ("Hey DM, wouldn't it be really neat if we caught him this way and got onto the main plot tonight?"), bribery ("Gee, I'm getting a bit hungry, what do you say I order us a pizza as soon as we catch this guy!",  or extortion ("It'd be a shame a SHAME I say if that coke bottle were to tip aspill all over your cards!")

Regardless of formality or informality, I prefer to resolve situations within character agency.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Agency means 'capacity to act'.  The first word is key.  It indicates where the action is emanating from...




You (the player) are taking the action in both scenarios. You (the player) made a decision to limit your scope and ask the DM just like You (the player) might not limit your scope and decide that the character knows the alleyway. 

The character simply can not act with out the player. You can't separate the characters ability to act from the players. The character doesn't exist with out the players capacity to act.

Your idea of player agency is just social interaction. If I say to Sarah next to me "hey if you save my character then you can have the last M&M" that's not player agency that's me goofing off with the group.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> No you can't. You can't make a cognitive decision with out the player influencing the character. The character exists in the player's mind, you can't split the two. So it's okay if a character can conceive it...like being a local/streetwise dude who knows the alleyways?




If this were true, it would be impossible to act as a DM, as it is normally conceived.  Ergo, I find holes in the argument.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> If this were true, it would be impossible to act as a DM, as it is normally conceived.  Ergo, I find holes in the argument.




It's not impossible to be a DM. It makes it impossible to be a dictator at the game table however.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> You (the player) are taking the action in both scenarios. You (the player) made a decision that to limit your scope and ask the DM just like You (the player) might no limit your scope and decide that the character knows the alleyway.
> 
> The character simply can not act with out the player. You can't not separate the characters ability to act from the players. The character doesn't exist with out the players capacity to act.
> 
> Your idea of player agency is just social interaction.





No.  I as player am asking for clarity over an unresolved item.  

Then I as player decide whether or not to act using character agency.

Then I as player decide whether or not to act using player agency.  

Player agency is certainly not just social interaction, but I've given about as clear a description of the difference as I care to.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> No.  I as player am asking for clarity over an unresolved item.
> 
> Then I as player decide whether or not to act using character agency.
> 
> ...




Right, so in all scenarios You (the player) make the decisions and the character does not act until You (the player) have decided.

So the character's capacity to act is still directly tied to You (the player)'s capacity to act.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Right, so in all scenarios You (the player) make the decisions and the character does not act until You (the player) have decided.
> 
> So the character's capacity to act is still directly tied to You (the player)'s capacity to act.




I think all he is saying is he avoids metagaming by drawing a line between player knowledge and character knowledge. No one seriously believes the character is independant of the player. But you can place boundaries around the two for the purposes of playing the game through the eyes of your character.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think all he is saying is he avoids metagaming by drawing a line between player knowledge and character knowledge. No one seriously believes the character is independant of the player. But you can place boundaries around the two for the purposes of playing the game through the eyes of your character.




I understand that. My point is, the player is still the one deciding where that line is drawn and if a player decides that line is drawn over here (suggesting that the character knows an alleyway) or over there (asking the DM if the character knows the alleyway), it's still the player's decision. 

Player agency is not separated from character agency.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I can point to a lot of lotteries like that, but they are all out of business now since the laws got tighened up!  Typically they worked in reverse -- see these numbers they won't come up!
> 
> Sure, the DM can be influenced, negotiated with, and otherwise influenced -- that's using player agency in a less formal manner.
> 
> You are engaged in affecting the world in a way your character (despite the number of prayers he may utter) cannot.




I think agency is just a particular type of narrative control.  You find narrative control distributed differently around the table depending on the rpg, and sometimes group, you're looking at.

As I stated upthread, it's nonsensical to define narrative control as total control, because then no one at the table (not even the DM) possesses it!  Not even the DM can tell me without cause that my human is a dwarf.  He can't tell me that my mage memorized fireball instead of divination this morning.  He needs a reason to deny my fighter an attack roll.  

IMO, this is because the rules create a framework for shared reality, and a DM who violates those boundaries without the consent of his players will find himself with justifiably irate players.  If you step outside the framework set by the rules without approval from the participants you're playing cowboys and indians in the back yard, not a role playing game.

Players certainly have _less_ narrative control in most games than the DM.  Since the DM acts as a referee, that makes sense.  However, even though 1 is both less than 2 and less than infinity, you would be in error assuming that this implies that 2 equals infinity:  

1 < 2     &&    1 < infinity
2 =/= infinity

The DM, players, and even dice all share narrative control of the game.  I believe that this is a big part of the reason that railroading has such a bad reputation; without consent from the players, a railroading DM oversteps the limits placed on his share of narrative control and steals that which belongs to the players.  It's also why railroads work for some groups; those players consent to surrendering a portion of their control to the DM in exchange for a better experience (from their perspective).  That it works for some and not for others isn't really relevant beyond that some players are willing to surrender more narrative control than others.  

It's similar in some respects to the government of certain republics.  The DM is akin to the president.  He wields great authority, but not without limits.  Players are like congressmen, guiding the game in the direction they'd like to see it go.  Both the president and the congress are granted different political powers by law (the rules).

Stories abound of players who ignored the Dungeon of the Week in order to explore something the DM never anticipated.  You can't tell me that that isn't a significant degree of control in regard to the narrative.  The DM planned for this week's story to be about exploring the dungeon.  Instead, the players made it about exploring the intricacies of wenching.  The story completely changed, not because of the DM but rather the players!  The DM, of course, still acts in his role as guide for the narrative of the wenching story, but this new narrative is nothing like what he intended.

Granted, in the above example, it may be the DM who feels slighted.  After all, he presumably spent time and effort preparing the Dungeon of the Week for the players but now that material is useless and he's being forced to improvise.  Other groups, including my own, love this sort of thing.  Not wenching, but rather taking the game completely off the track.  Some of our best sessions were 99% improvised.

All narrative control in rpgs is a matter of degrees.  What degree that control is shared, is admittedly a matter of personal preference.  However, assuming that the DM is the only one in control is a mistake.  If that were the case, the DM would be telling the "players" story rather than arbitrating a game.


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Right, so in all scenarios You (the player) make the decisions and the character does not act until You (the player) have decided.
> 
> So the character's capacity to act is still directly tied to You (the player)'s capacity to act.




The character always acts through the player - don't think that's in any dispute. 

The question is is the player directly setting/influencing the setting  (some games have mechanics for this directly and most have at at the very least an indirect way of accomplishing this) or is the player merely navigating the character through the setting with skills/abilities strictly available through the character only. Nagol is saying he prefers the later (a position that seems well represented, if this thread and others is any indication).


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think all he is saying is he avoids metagaming by drawing a line between player knowledge and character knowledge. No one seriously believes the character is independant of the player. But you can place boundaries around the two for the purposes of playing the game through the eyes of your character.




That and I draw a line between what the character can do and what I can do.  I prefer to stay on the character side of that line.  That means I avoid games that place me in the character-advocate role where I am modifying the universe outside of my character's choices.

The original version of _Come and Get it_, for example, affected enemies non-sensically unless I, the player, provided narrative reason for their (often) irrational actions.

A non D&D example would be the playing of a Whimsy Card during play, or the Dogs in the Vineyard resolution system.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> The character always acts through the player - don't think that's in any dispute.
> 
> The question is is the player directly setting/influencing the setting  (some games have mechanics for this directly and most have at at the very least an indirect way of accomplishing this) or is the player merely navigating the character through the setting with skills/abilities strictly available through the character only. Nagol is saying he prefers the later (a position that seems well represented, if this thread and others is any indication).




I understand that. What I'm saying is that you can't split player/character agency. The character always acts through the player. Even the abilities/skills are determined by the player and DM. So why is it any different if the player decides to expand those abilities such as in the example? It maybe a different playstyle, I understand that, but it isn't changing anything in regards to agency.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> <snip>
> 
> The DM, players, and even dice all share narrative control of the game.  I believe that this is a big part of the reason that railroading has such a bad reputation; without consent from the players, a railroading DM oversteps the limits placed on his share of narrative control and steals that which belongs to the players.  It's also why railroads work for some groups; those players consent to surrendering a portion of their control to the DM in exchange for a better experience (from their perspective).  That it works for some and not for others isn't really relevant beyond that some players are willing to surrender more narrative control than others.
> 
> <snip>




If the characters wander off away from assigned place A into the great unknown, so be it.  If the characters approach or avoid an obstacle, so be it.  That is under the character's control.

When I hear "player narrative control" I hear "player controlling items and events outside of his assigned character".  I agree, players should have complete control over their their characters and the actions performed by them.  What I don't like is the expectation I will affect something in the universe that the character is not/cannot affect.


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> I understand that. What I'm saying is that you can't split player/character agency. The character always acts through the player. Even the abilities/skills are determined by the player and DM. So why is it any different if the player decides to expand those abilities such as in the example? It maybe a different playstyle, I understand that, but it isn't changing anything in regards to agency.




The character always acts through the player, but the player might not always act through the character - that is the distinction.

If I, as the player, use a fate point to place a cart in front of the villain to slow him down, the character has nothing to do with this. It is the player exerting direct narrative control over the setting and it is this that some players have a dislike of. 

I was confused for a minute because Nagol was using the term "player agency" but I think I get it now.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> The character always acts through the player, but the player might not always act through the character - that is the distinction.
> 
> If I, as the player, use a fate point to place a cart in front of the villain to slow him down, the character has nothing to do with this. It is the player exerting direct narrative control over the setting and it is this that some players have a dislike of.
> 
> I was confused for a minute because Nagol was using the term "player agency" but I think I get it now.




That example makes more sense. Thanks. With this clarification, the OG example is not player agency because the character is acting through the player but if the player was to suggest that a cart be placed in front of the villain than that would be. Is that correct?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> When I hear "player narrative control" I hear "player controlling items and events outside of his assigned character"...




IME this is how most "narrative based" games define it as well. I feel like some of the definitions of narrative control used in this thread are so broad that they are effectively blurring the line of where non-narrative control ends and narrative control begins. IMO, asking the DM if something exists, whether it does or doesn't since you won't know, is not narrative control but instead getting clarification/confirmaton from the DM on whether something does or does not exist. 

I mean how is this any different from a player asking if a secret door is in a room and the DM then telling him/her to roll a Perception check? Now I wouldn't call this narrative control since the player isn't controlling anything, the DM is. Did the door exsist before the PC asked to search for it? Only the DM knows. Contrast this with games like the FATE system and a player knows he has created something wholecloth that was not there before he stated it through something other than the actions of his character.


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> That example makes more sense. Thanks. With this clarification, the OG example is not player agency because the character is acting through the player but if the player was to suggest that a cart be placed in front of the villain than that would be. Is that correct?




Well the Original example *might* be player agency (and was intended to be a clear, if small, example of such) the player was "creating" a route or shortcut where none existed before (at least in the mind and notes of the DM. You can easily argue it "always" existed in the actual setting). The question is:  is it really new? is the player just "finding" vs. creating?

Look at the kobayashi maru discussion earlier in the thread. I think this is a clear example of handling (and even perceiving) the situation in different ways. I think different approaches that fit people's playstyles have really been showcased in this thread!


----------



## KiloGex (Nov 1, 2011)

I wouldn't consider this giving control over to the players, because that would insinuate that I have control over everything in the first place.  I think it's presumptuous to say that I, as the GM, control everything that goes on within the game.  Yes, I could have control over everything that happens and just tell the players what is going on, but then what is the point of the RP aspect of the game?  I might just as well tell them what happens in between combats?

I quite often have my players dictate what their characters do, and sometimes it does interrupt the narrative that I have set forth.  I have simply learned to not plan too far ahead.  Ultimately, it really all depends on your group dynamic and what your goal of the game is:  For me, its character development through RP and group building, while others may be to reach the next level and grow through combat.  If one of my players knows that cutting through the back end of the building will lead him to an alleyway that meets up with the main road, then more power to him.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> Well the Original example *might* be player agency (and was intended to be a clear, if small, example of such) the player was "creating" a route or shortcut where none existed before (at least in the mind and notes of the DM. You can easily argue it "always" existed in the actual setting). The question is:  is it really new? is the player just "finding" vs. creating?
> 
> Look at the kobayashi maru discussion earlier in the thread. I think this is a clear example of handling (and even perceiving) the situation in different ways. I think different approaches that fit people's playstyles have really been showcased in this thread!




Wait, I lost it again. The player isn't changing the world because no world is static. The player is deciding that the character has prior knowledge of the shortcut. If the character is with in the bounds of the player and this is what is called character agency, then isn't the example a case of character agency? Because player agency would for-go the character all together?

I still think it's a bit silly to split these agency terms up when the player is the definitive ingredient in both.


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Wait, I lost it again. The player isn't changing the world because no world is static. The player is deciding that the character has prior knowledge of the shortcut. If the character is with in the bounds of the player and this is what is called character agency, then isn't the example a case of character agency? Because player agency would for-go the character all together?
> 
> I still think it's a bit silly to split these agency terms up when the player is the definitive ingredient in both.




Again the player *might* be changing the world (say the DM had no path before etc.). 

It is absolutely clear cut with the fate point-cart example because you can't enterpret that as anything but player narrative control (I think it's easier and more clear cut in general in systems with clear and defined fate point mechanics)- but there are plenty of cases (as seen in this thread) where it might or might not be depending on how it's presented and how the DM (and player) chooses to handle it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> If you're referring to the map as a *draconian* reality, then yeah not allowing for player suggestion is pretty unreasonable isn't it.




This word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

Here I am at work. It would be Friday and time for game night right now if it weren't for that draconian calendar. 

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? 

Player: How far is it to the next town? 
DM; Well, based on this draconian map about 20 miles or so. 
Player: Thats too far, I do something impressive to get there in 10 miles.
DM: Sure. Gimmie a stealth roll.
Player: WOOT!! a 30!!
DM: time and space rolls over and takes a nap, you realize the town is only 10 miles down the road.


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> This word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> Here I am at work. It would be Friday and time for game night right now if it weren't for that draconian calendar.
> 
> ...




You know - depending on system and setting this is not nearly as immutable as you're presenting (I know that's not your point btw but it just struck me). Player narrative control may or may not apply.

with Player Narrative control:

Player: How far is it to the next town? 
DM; Well, based on this draconian map about 20 miles or so.
Player: Thats too far, I got a fate point stored up just for this occasion can I use it to reduce the distance to 10 miles?
DM: There's a teleportation circle that your character remembers just 10 miles for there that should get you exactly where you need to go!

with no Player Narrative control:

Player: How far is it to the next town? 
DM; Well, based on this draconian map about 20 miles or so. 
Player: Thats too far, I want to do something impressive to get there in 10 miles.
DM: Sure. Gimmie a geography roll.
Player: WOOT!! a 30!!
DM: You know that 10 miles away lies a teleportation portal you should be able to gain access to which should get you exactly where you need to go!

Now, is this a bit extreme? maybe, but I've seen similar. And hopefuly it illustrates the point (if nothing else it shows when playing a fantasy/sci-fi game laws of time and space are not laws but merely mutable guidelines).


----------



## Nagol (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> You know - depending on system and setting this is not nearly as immutable as you're presenting (I know that's not your point btw but it just struck me). Player narrative control may or may not apply.
> 
> with Player Narrative control:
> 
> ...




An equally incontestable resolution for a player without narrative control is the following:

Player: How far is it to the next town? 
DM; Well, based on this draconian map about 20 miles or so. 
Player: Thats too far, I want to do something impressive to get there in 10 miles.
DM: Sure. Gimmie a geography roll.
Player: WOOT!! a 30!!
DM: Yep, you're certain the town is 21 miles away.  If you want to get there faster, you'll have be inventive!  What sort of impressive thing are you planning, an all-night march at a run, or do you have some form of magic to use?


----------



## Mort (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> An equally incontestable resolution for a player without narrative control is the following:
> 
> Player: How far is it to the next town?
> DM; Well, based on this draconian map about 20 miles or so.
> ...




Absolutely true. That's actually one of my gripes with mid-high level 3e. It's *hard* to find a a situation of the above nature (and many more like it)  where the group actually has to be inventive and will not have an immediate 6 second solution.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 1, 2011)

Now you guys have got me thinking about that Roger Zelazny novel where the heroes take a shortcut through the "missing socks" dimension.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 1, 2011)

Nagol said:


> An equally incontestable resolution for a player without narrative control is the following:
> 
> Player: How far is it to the next town?
> DM; Well, based on this draconian map about 20 miles or so.
> ...




I think a far more pleasant way to handle this than anything so far is:

Player: We need some supplies. How far to the nearest town?
DM: Based on your map, about 20 miles or so.
Player: Hmmm, maps often gloss over smaller settlements. I want to use my geography skill to see if I know of any smaller hamlets.
DM: Gimmie a geography roll.
Player: I got a 30.
DM: You know of a few starting about 10 miles from here and then about every 2 miles thereafter until you hit town. You'll be able to find food, shelter, and bandage supplies, but no luck on the potions you want.

I know this the Internet, but not every example used in debate needs to be hyperbolic.


----------



## Janx (Nov 1, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I think a far more pleasant way to handle this than anything so far is:
> 
> Player: We need some supplies. How far to the nearest town?
> DM: Based on your map, about 20 miles or so.
> ...




Good example.  The player asked if something existed or not.  The DM decided it was plausible and made a check to see if it was actual.

That's not the same thing as the player invoking a rule that let's him declare that something exists and the GM can't really stop him.

In the case of these so-called immutable maps, none of you posess a game map that I can't find some detail that probably exists in the actual game space that the game map does not cover.  

That detail is then subject to the concept of the clarifying and leading question that a PC may then ask about which then requires the GM to determine a response.  

Responding "No" to every one of those questions would probably be ridiculous or kneejerky.

Responding "Yes" to every one of those questions would probably be silly and unrealistic.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2011)

Mort said:


> This surprised me a bit as I've not yet had a negative response to giving some narrative control to the players (in fact I would have to describe response as overwhelmingly positive). That said, I have a pretty limited sample as I don't really have time to DM outside of my regular group.
> 
> I will also say that I disagree that story is being put ahead of setting here as giving narrative control to players can still easily place setting first.



I'd do that, if a player asked me.  Well, more specifically, I'd ask if he had any ranks on Knowledge (local) or the equivalent.  If not, I'd let him try it untrained just because, hey, he is from around here.  Then I'd make him make a check to see if he could find or remember or utilize any such shortcut.  If he failed the check, well that's not an indictment of the idea, though.

I also fail to see how it's putting the story in front of setting, or rather, I'm not sure what is meant by that.  As you point out yourself, it's actually a question of failing to make the GM's story paramount, so arguably it's the opposite of that claim.

But even if it is; so what?  Story's pretty darn important to most gamer's enjoyment of the game, IME.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Nov 1, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> This word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> Here I am at work. It would be Friday and time for game night right now if it weren't for that draconian calendar.
> 
> ...




I know how to use draconian. A game reduced to rules represented by lines on paper is very hash on shared narrative. Also, your example is not how these scenarios work.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2011)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> I know how to use draconian. A game reduced to rules represented by lines on paper is very hash on shared narrative. Also, your example is not how these scenarios work.



In other news, _love_ the username.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2011)

How about this:

Player: We need some supplies. How far to the nearest town?
DM: Based on your map, about 20 miles or so.
Player: Hmmm, maps often gloss over smaller settlements. I want to use my geography skill to see if I know of any smaller hamlets.
DM: Gimmie a geography roll.
Player: I got a 30.
DM: You know of an old fording place over the river that will cut about five miles off your trip and several hours.  Since the weather has been dry lately, the ford should be clear.

Now, there was no ford marked on the map, and the weather point was previously unestablished.  To me, this is a fairly mild form of Player Agency, or Narrative Control (depending on whose verbiage you want to use).  The Player has initiated something over which his character has no possible way of initiating and the DM has effectively just gone with "Say Yes".  

Really, that's what the whole "Say Yes" thing is - allowing player suggestions to override the DM while the DM does maintain a veto option.  The DM did not have a ford on his map, nor did he establish the weather previously.  These things have all been added at the Player's prompting.

Now a more clear example would be where the Player simply dictates the existence of the ford - that's pretty clear cut and I think we'd all agree that that's narrative control.

But, I think that a broader definition is still applicable here.  If the DM is changing things at the Player's prompting, that's a mild form of Narrative Control.  In the early example of finding a secret door, it would depend.  Did the DM add the secret door based on the player's skill check?  If yes, then that's Narrative Control.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now a more clear example would be where the Player simply dictates the existence of the ford - that's pretty clear cut and I think we'd all agree that that's narrative control.
> 
> But, I think that a broader definition is still applicable here.  If the DM is changing things at the Player's prompting, that's a mild form of Narrative Control.  In the early example of finding a secret door, it would depend.  Did the DM add the secret door based on the player's skill check?  If yes, then that's Narrative Control.



I agree with this. That's narrative control, and you're correct when you say it's mild. This post is spot-on with how I view things. As always, play what you like


----------



## molepunch (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't mean any disrespect to the above interesting views but there is no one right way to GM or play D&D. If people are having fun so be it. I think this debate just illustrates how important it is for the players and the GM to share the same style and appreciation of it.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really, that's what the whole "Say Yes" thing is - allowing player suggestions to override the DM while the DM does maintain a veto option.




Not originally.  It was about conflict resolution:

Dogs in the Vineyard, page 138:
Drive play toward conflict
Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes.
If nothing’s at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they’re doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.
Sooner or later — sooner, because your town’s pregnant with crisis — they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice.
Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes.​
So you "say yes" until another character tries to stop the PCs.

*

I tend to look at narrative control in terms of authority: the DM may say, sure, you know about this thing I haven't pre-planned; then again, he may say no, you don't.  The authority to say yes or no lies with the DM.  Though I don't know how often (or if) that's explicitly stated anywhere.

This blog entry covers my thoughts: The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play  Game Design is about Structure


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 2, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yeah... I keep wondering when John McClane and The Last Action Hero became the new archetypes for fantasy heroes?



Considering 'Die Hard' is from 1988, I'd say about twenty years ago


----------



## pemerton (Nov 2, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> This would seem appropriate to me, too. Roll some opposed checks / a skill challenge to see if you catch him. There are different methods, but I'm with you in the basic concept of using the mechanics to solve it.



OK, but now you have given me the crack into which I wedge my narrativist agenda! (Well, I'm not sure from your other posts on this thread exactly how you run this sort of issue in your game, so I'm not actually sure if I'm wedging you, agreeing with you, or just saying how I'd do it in my game.)

Suppose a player says "I take the shortest route through the town". If anything is actually at stake in the relevant episode of play, then the GM won't just condede this - s/he will call for a check (let's say a Streetwise check).

In [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]'s example, it is the _GM_ who has had the NPC try and take the shortest route through town. But something is at stake - the PC's want to stop the NPC! So the GM has to make a Streetwise check for his/her NPC, just as a player would. And the players can also make a check, and then the results compared.

Or, in 4e which prefers to have only the players make rolls in this sort of situation (the GM gets no rolls in a skill challenge) then the NPC takes the shortest route and escapes only if the players fail the skill challenge.

So for me it's not about fudging the map, it's about the GM not having authority, any more than the players do, to stipulate that his/her NPC succeeds in some contested action without having to engage the action resolution mechanics.

As I think I posted upthread, or perhaps on the original thread, for me this is no different from the fact that the GM can't just stipulate that his/her NPCs strike killing blows. The action resolution mechanics must be engaged.



Nagol said:


> Only if such a pass and a route more direct but less travelled to it exist.  Otherwise, it is pretty unreasonable.



What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.



Imaro said:


> I too enjoy it in systems that are designed for and around it.  Throwing it into games that aren't... I've got mixed feelings on.



As I've explained it above, a fair bit of what in this thread seems to be labelled as "player narrative control", I would be inclined to bring under the heading of "how do the action resolution mechanics handle the range of conflicts that the game may throw up?". If the game is going to make chases an important issue, it probably needs mechanics to resolve them. An example is the evasion mechanics in classic D&D - the players cannot escape an encounter just by specifying "We flee faster than the monsters in a straight line". The players can formulate this intention, but whether they realise it is determined via the mechanics. As I've set out earlier in this post, I think the chase of the NPC through the town should be handled the same sort of way.

The question of whether there is a town less than 20 miles away, or a ford, is a slightly different issue. This _is_ closer to a genuine example of narrative control, I think, and the blog that LostSoul linked to becomes relevant:



LostSoul said:


> This blog entry covers my thoughts: The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play  Game Design is about Structure



In a scenario in which the aim is for the players to survive the 20 mile journey to town, then letting the players circumvent the challenge by positing a ford is coming close to letting the players define the parameters of their own challenge, which can lead to unsatisfying play. On the other hand, when the journey to town is a challenge, but surviving a 20 mile journey is neither here nor there, then finding and using the ford makes sense as part of the challenge resolution. I think this becomes about a GM making decisions about the parameters of the situation, making them clear to the players, and then adjudicating action resolution (including skill tests that "create new facts", like BW -wises, or the knowledge check that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggests upthread) in light of that.



Imaro said:


> First, if it comes down to DM decision it is in fact "Mother may I"... you are asking the DM whether something exists and it boils down to his decision.



I think there is a difference between clear, even hard(-ish), scene-framing and "mother may I" - one happens before action resolution begins, the other is an unsatisfactory form of action resolution.

I'm not saying I can clearly _articulate_ this difference, but I think it is pretty noticeable in play, because in the first case you'll have enthusiastic players taking up your challenges, whereas in the second case you'll have grumpy players complaining about your railroading. (If I did try and articulate it, I would say that scene framing creates a "space" in which the players can pursue their goals via the action resolution mechanics, whereas "mother may I" is the players having to beg the GM to succeed in the pursuit of their goals.)



Imaro said:


> Using an example many of us may be familiar with... un-eratta'd Come and Get It. It was considered narrative control because there was no DM discretion or mechanical uncertainty in it's changing of the narrative. No save, no DM veto power, none of that. That IMO is an example of narrative control given over to players.



I would say that Come and Get It is especially mild narrative control, because its parameters and limitations are clearly specified and inherent with the mechanic.

The complaints I've seen about Come and Get It tend to relate to fictional positioning, and extrapolation of the story (ie the adequacy of fortune-in-the-middle action resolution mechanics) rather than player narrative control.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 2, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yeah... I keep wondering when John McClane and The Last Action Hero became the new archetypes for fantasy heroes?



1979.

That year precedes the two movies you referenced but I mention it because it is, I believe, the very first published attempt to make D&D more closely resemble the source fiction, Doug Green's article "Rewarding Heroism In D&D", in Dragon Magazine #29. One of the rules he suggests is a sort of early Hero Point mechanic - a PC fighting alone for the good of the party, ie being a hero, receives a major boost to his combat capabilities (attack as a character of double level, take half damage, 20% boost to everything else).

One major difference is that Doug's "heroic act" is not under the control of the player. The player doesn't choose to spend a hero point to get the temporary stat increase, it happens whenever a PC is in the appropriate situation.

Later Hero Point mechanics, in games such as James Bond 007 and Mutants & Masterminds, are under the player's control. They can be used to boost a PC's capabilities briefly, simulating action movie stunts and comic book heroes suddenly accessing a new power (which they never use again in subsequent issues), and even alter, or, it might be more correct to say determine, or pin down, details completely outside the PC's control. The example in James Bond 007 is of the player spending a hero point to have a gold brick happen to be lying nearby, which he can use as a makeshift club to thwack Oddjob.

Narrative control points often seem to be associated with games that are more interested in simulating adventure fiction than D&D has historically been. (As far as I'm aware, the only fiction-sim rules in D&D are 4e's minions and, arguably, the saving throw mechanic.) It's worth considering why this should be. Adventure fiction is replete with lucky, and unlucky, coincidences that get the hero out of, and into, peril. One obvious way to go is to allow the player to determine when he gets a lucky coincidence, while the GM determines the unlucky ones. This makes the fiction-sim also work as a game, in which the player only has a limited number of 'lucky coincidence' points. It's also beneficial because it gives the player more agency, and in general people like to have agency. Though I note that upthread several people have expressed a dislike of this because it breaks immersion.

Another way to go would be to have the lucky and unlucky coincidences controlled by the system, presumably by dice roll. Perhaps something pretty close to the critical hit/fumble idea, where a 1 or a 20 mean something extraordinary happens. However in the fiction, the coincidences do seem to be a lot less random than this. That could also conceivably be built in, by using some measure of how much peril the PC is currently in. If he's in no peril at all, then it's very likely something bad, or at least adventure-inducing, will occur. If he's in a lot, then he's almost certain to get a lucky break. And so the endless roller coaster continues.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.
> <snip>




At no point did I state (or intend to imply) that there would be an auto-win.  Merely that a particular gambit may not succeed -- either because the route taken is in fact the best (i.e. a roll against a static DC of the city -- rather than active opposition) or because there really is one good and obvious route between the start and destination points.  Merely _wanting_ something is insufficent to guaranteeing getting it and at a table where the DM is assigned narrative control a faster route not becoming manfest is perfectly reasonable.

The party can use any other tactic or ability at their disposal.  I find that almost nothing is an autowin if a moderately powerful party really wants to interfere.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The question of whether there is a town less than 20 miles away, or a ford, is a slightly different issue. This _is_ closer to a genuine example of narrative control, I think, and the blog that LostSoul linked to becomes relevant:
> 
> In a scenario in which the aim is for the players to survive the 20 mile journey to town, then letting the players circumvent the challenge by positing a ford is coming close to letting the players define the parameters of their own challenge, which can lead to unsatisfying play. On the other hand, when the journey to town is a challenge, but surviving a 20 mile journey is neither here nor there, then finding and using the ford makes sense as part of the challenge resolution. I think this becomes about a GM making decisions about the parameters of the situation, making them clear to the players, and then adjudicating action resolution (including skill tests that "create new facts", like BW -wises, or the knowledge check that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggests upthread) in light of that.



Where I'm losing you is where you deviate from the example as posted so far, though.  At no point in any of the citings of this example did I see this as a meaningful challenge to be overcome.  It's just a scenario, and it gives a player with Knowledge (geography) a chance to use a skill that otherwise probably gets pretty dusty.  


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm not saying I can clearly _articulate_ this difference, but I think it is pretty noticeable in play, because in the first case you'll have enthusiastic players taking up your challenges, whereas in the second case you'll have grumpy players complaining about your railroading. (If I did try and articulate it, I would say that scene framing creates a "space" in which the players can pursue their goals via the action resolution mechanics, whereas "mother may I" is the players having to beg the GM to succeed in the pursuit of their goals.)



Now I'm really losing you, although maybe I'm missing the point of what you call "Mother May I" scenarios.  Asking the GM if you could use a skill check to determine if there are smaller settlements than showed on the map that are closer, and having a high check sway the GM to decide that yes, there are, is railroading?  It's unsatisfying to the players?

Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree with you.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the conventional wisdom I've seen so far suggest the exact opposite of that.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 2, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Considering 'Die Hard' is from 1988, I'd say about twenty years ago





I was actually being a little tongue and cheek. I just remember as a kid these were not the names that poppped into my head when I thought "fantasy" hero, and I grew up in the mid-late 80's. In my mind an action hero and a fantasy hero were two different things. I wanted to be Aragorn, Perseus, Elric, Gray Mouser, Lancelot, and a host of other fantasy heroes but I don't think I associated them with the action hero stereotype. Even the Sword and Sorcery fiction I discovered seemed less over the top than those movies.



Doug McCrae said:


> 1979.
> 
> That year precedes the two movies you referenced but I mention it because it is, I believe, the very first published attempt to make D&D more closely resemble the source fiction, Doug Green's article "Rewarding Heroism In D&D", in Dragon Magazine #29. One of the rules he suggests is a sort of early Hero Point mechanic - a PC fighting alone for the good of the party, ie being a hero, receives a major boost to his combat capabilities (attack as a character of double level, take half damage, 20% boost to everything else).
> 
> ...




See I've always thought the extreme competency of D&D characters in their repsective field(s) along with things like HP's and Saving Throws represented the fiction-sim (at least as far as the fantasy I've read and seen) pretty well... of course this is accounting for the fact that ultimately it is a game (as opposed to shared storytelling) and a player, unlike a character written by the author, will fail and die at times.


----------



## Janx (Nov 2, 2011)

Hobo said:


> Now I'm really losing you, although maybe I'm missing the point of what you call "Mother May I" scenarios.  Asking the GM if you could use a skill check to determine if there are smaller settlements than showed on the map that are closer, and having a high check sway the GM to decide that yes, there are, is railroading?  It's unsatisfying to the players?
> 
> Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree with you.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the conventional wisdom I've seen so far suggest the exact opposite of that.




I agree.

Let's discard these gamist terms like Narrative Control.  Nobody agrees on their scope anyway.

Since the dawn of the first RPG, players have asked if something exists, and at many times with the hope that the answer is Yes so they can use it.

If I say the PCs enter what appears to be the Dining Room of the Mansion.  That paints a picture.  But if the player has an idea, he's going to ask questions that both clarify that picture and lead the DM to what the player wants.  If he asks "are there any candlesticks?"  he might be hoping to steal them, or use them as a light source, or an improvised weapon.  It's entirely logical that a dining room could have them, but they might also have been plundered or not-applicable as the room uses wall sconces.

Whatever this form of behavior is called, it's been happening for 40 years.

Now the player asking if there's a Teleport pad nearby so he can skip walking 20 miles.  That's a bit stronger.  He's gone beyond the realm of creating content that is probably there to getting very specific and very special (assuming teleport pads are not a common occurance in this world).

Nextly to all this, is the ironic assumption that saying yes = railroading.  I would find that to be quite the opposite.

Players who ask if things exist that the DM didn't explicitly define are going off the rails.  RailRoading is more related to when the DM tries to keep them in the bounds of his defined content.  Saying "No" is the tool a RR GM would use to keep them constrained to the path the GM has planned.

Not saying a GM who says "No" is railroading.  But a true RRGM is more likely to say "No" than "Yes" to any question regarding undefined content in order to constrain player choices to the valid path he has planned.  Saying Yes would unlock new paths that could bypasss his RR content or worse.

As to the concept of asking these kinds of questions being unsatisfying to the players?  They're the MotherFrakkers who asked!  Players wouldn't ask if there's a shortcut if they didn't want to hear "Yes"

To sum up, for me, it is standard game play to ask if something is present that logically does tend to exist in the typical environment(candlesticks in Dining Rooms, shortcuts on maps, rocks on roads, applecarts in markets, deer in forests) and that the GM is free to resolve the answer by their own method.

It is therefore accepted that the player is trying to lead or manipulate the GM into saying Yes so as to gain an advantage, but that is no more or less what a player and PC would try to do regardless of the GM's resolution mechanic.

It is a different thing to ask for unusual things (like a Teleport Pad in the woods) which are atypical for that kind of environment.  If the rules don't allow for stronger content suggestions (points to spend on Content) than the GM is within his right to say "No" outright as the player may be abusing the "clarifying question" principle.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 2, 2011)

Hobo said:


> Asking the GM if you could use a skill check to determine if there are smaller settlements than showed on the map that are closer, and having a high check sway the GM to decide that yes, there are, is railroading?



Not at all. Railroading would be when the GM dictates how things unfold without reference to the action resolution mechanics.



Hobo said:


> It's unsatisfying to the players?



I think railroading is generally unsatisfying. But the other thing that I think can be unsatisfying - and here I'm influence by the blog that LostSoul linked to upthread - is when the players pose their own challenge for their PCs. That blog cites it as the Czege principle:

The “Czege principle” is a proposition by Paul Czege that it’s not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict. It’s not a theorem but rather an observation; where and how and why it holds true is an ongoing question of some particular interest.​
A situation in which players are able to use their knowledge skills in the form of Burning Wheel "-wises", essentially to introduce facts into the setting that circumvent the challenge that the situation poses, runs the risk of violating the Czege principle, because the players are both framing the challenge, and trying to overcome it via the play of their PCs.

This is what _could_ happen in the 20 mile journey scenario: the GM frames a situation which the players are to engage via their PCs, but then - by using their knowledge skills - the players in effect reframe the situation (in fact, no 20 mile journey is requires) and thus set their own challenge.

Now, it may be that it would be unusual for the 20 mile journey to be a challenge. As you say,



Hobo said:


> Where I'm losing you is where you deviate from the example as posted so far, though.  At no point in any of the citings of this example did I see this as a meaningful challenge to be overcome.  It's just a scenario, and it gives a player with Knowledge (geography) a chance to use a skill that otherwise probably gets pretty dusty.



But if it's not a meaningful challenge at all - if there's nothing at stake - then it wouldn't even matter whether the PCs go 20 miles or go to a closer hamlet. This would be where the injunction to "say yes or roll the dice" that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] quoted upthread would become relevant.

And if the challenge isn't to travel 20 miles safely, but rather to find some habitation or other, then using knowledge checks to find a closer hamlet, or a ford that cuts distance off the journey, would be fine (provided it is not already establishd in the fiction that there is no such hamlet). But in my view this should be built into the action resolution mechanics (in 4e, the relevant mechanics would be a skill challenge) rather than just the players ad hoc getting the GM's permission to roll their knowledge skills.



Hobo said:


> Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree with you.



I think maybe some misunderstanding, and some disagreement. I hope the above makes clearer what I mean by it being unsatisfying for the players to pose their own challenge.

Where there probably is some disagreement is that, if nothing is at stake, I would just say yes rather than make the players faff around with knowledge checks. And, conversely, once the challenge _has_ been framed, I think it can be unsatisfying for the playes to use skill checks to circumvent it rather than overcome it. And if the GM is framing challenges that the players find boring (like, say, a 20 mile journey) then I don't think the solution is for the players to use skill checks to circumvent the challenge. The solution is for the GM to stop framing boring scenes. To put it another way, I'd rather handle the issue of boring scene framing all at the strictly metagame level, rather than relying on failsafes in the action resolution mechanics.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> [SNIP]
> 
> So for me it's not about fudging the map, it's about the GM not having authority, any more than the players do, to stipulate that his/her NPC succeeds in some contested action without having to engage the action resolution mechanics.
> 
> As I think I posted upthread, or perhaps on the original thread, for me this is no different from the fact that the GM can't just stipulate that his/her NPCs strike killing blows. The action resolution mechanics must be engaged.



This is where I think it's not equivalent. You make a decision based on in-character knowledge, then use the mechanics to resolve it. For example, you'd say, "I swing my sword at the troll" when you know there's a troll, and you know he's within reach, then you use mechanics to resolve it. With the escaping villain, you'd use in-character knowledge in exactly the same way: I know this town well, I'm going to cut him off if possible, or chase him if I don't think I can, and I determine if it's successful by using mechanics.

You're saying that the opponent's don't even get to make in-character decisions, which is a luxury that PCs get. In a game where I want both NPCs and PCs making decisions from an in-character point of view, this fails for me, and hard.

When an NPC wants to walk across the street to a shop when the PCs are stealthily watching him, he doesn't make a check. He knows the exact route he needs to take. In a city where the NPC at hand is taking the most direct route (as was used in the example in the OP), there should be no roll to determine if that's suddenly not the case, much as there wouldn't be for a player character. That is, just like a PC can say, "I walk across the street to the shop" when he knows of the shop there, he can say, "I take the most direct route to the docks" if his character knows the most direct route there.

Now, I say, "should" and so on in the above, but I want to make it very clear, this is just my play style. I'm not saying the game needs to be run this way, nor am I saying that the game is more fun in any objective sense when run this way. It's just my style, so feel free to use what works for your group, and tear it up.



> What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.



(1) That's not unreasonable to me if it makes sense. That is, looking at the game from a sense of internal consistency (not changing established facts, as the OP suggests be the case when the a shortcut would be created). To some groups, such as mine, this style of play is preferred, and much more rewarding than a more narrative style (and thus more fun for us).

(2) Having the most direct route is not an auto-win necessarily. You can still catch up, distract, trip up, etc. the villain. I think it's unfair to paint it as "you should be able to have a chance of cutting him off or it's unreasonable." That, to me, is unreasonable.

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Nov 2, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> That's not unreasonable to me if it makes sense. That is, looking at the game from a sense of internal consistency (not changing established facts, as the OP suggests be the case when the a shortcut would be created).



Perhaps [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] can chime in, but I didn't read the OP as suggesting that the established fiction be changed. As I read it, the suggestion was precisely that it was _not_establised in the shared fiction that there was no shorter route. (There may have been no alternative path indicated on the GM's map, but the GM's map is not the shared fiction - as Vincent Baker talks about here, the GM's map is the GM's initial plan for how to contribute content to the shared fiction.)



JamesonCourage said:


> You're saying that the opponent's don't even get to make in-character decisions



No. The NPC gets to decide, in character, to take the shortest route, just as a player might decide for his/her PC. But then - just as would be the case for a player - the GM must engage the action resolution mechanics to see if the NPC succeeds in achieving his/her intention. Maybe s/he is ignorant, and there is in fact a shorter way. Maybe s/he is short, and for the taller there is a shorter way that requires jumping a fence too high for the NPC. Maybe, unbenknownst to the NPC, there are roadworks taking place on his/her preferred route.

Just as for the playes, so for the GM in resolving the NPC's action - there are any number of reasons why an intention could misfire in some way, and when there is something at stake, I'm not a big fan of the GM deciding unilaterally, without engaging the mechanics, that the NPC automatically succeeds.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Not at all. Railroading would be when the GM dictates how things unfold without reference to the action resolution mechanics.




That's not railroading, it's GM fiat. Fiat is a tool often used by Railroading GMs, but it is not in and of itself railroading.

The OP isn't narrative control. It's the player making a statement, presumably from the context, with backing on his character sheet and then asking a question. The GM has him roll the appropriate check to determine then answer to that question rather then making a decision on it himself for whatever reason.

Narrative control would be him stating that there is a shortcut (by spending a point or whatever that game uses to adjudicate of control player narrative control).

I use both all the time in my games, although as GM I get final veto on all Narrative control, typically I just wind up turning down the knob on whatever the player wanted and rarely at that. I also loss over boring stuff and don't ask for rolls for simple or mundane stuff. I don't subscribe to the Indie 'Say Yes' mantra, but I see no reason to bore myself or the other players with mundane, no risk die rolls.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Perhaps [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] can chime in, but I didn't read the OP as suggesting that the established fiction be changed.



If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group). Mort said:


			
				Mort said:
			
		

> The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him. Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain (*essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it*)?



To me, when he indicates "changing the reality of the game world as he planned it" and he has a drawn up map of the city with which he could reliably use up to this point as a part of the setting, changing it would be changing the setting (which is part of internal consistency, much the same way I'd consider "established fiction" to be).



> As I read it, the suggestion was precisely that it was _not_establised in the shared fiction that there was no shorter route. (There may have been no alternative path indicated on the GM's map, but the GM's map is not the shared fiction - as Vincent Baker talks about here, the GM's map is the GM's initial plan for how to contribute content to the shared fiction.)



I guess it'll depend on the group. For example, I basically only use regional or continental maps. My players have access to these, and use them to great extent to plan and plot. To change this map would certainly be drastically altering the setting. To me, I don't have a "GM's" map. And, just like most thing you link from Vincent Baker, I strongly disagree with what you're putting forward as I understand it (and no, I didn't read anything from the link). If I have a map as GM, it's now set in the setting. I will not be changing it for convenience's sake. I might expand focus to something not covered, yes. Like I said, my maps are continental, and just because there's no wild game or edible vegetation on the map, it doesn't mean it's impossible to survive in the wild. No, that's not what's important to the map, and it's not on it. However, in a city map, with streets already mapped out, there will be absolutely no change to it simply because the players haven't seen it. And they would not want me to, either.



> No.



You know, that was presumptuous of me. I apologize. I try not to put words in people's mouths without a qualifier ("as I understand it" or the like).



> The NPC gets to decide, in character, to take the shortest route, just as a player might decide for his/her PC. But then - just as would be the case for a player - the GM must engage the action resolution mechanics to see if the NPC succeeds in achieving his/her intention. Maybe s/he is ignorant, and there is in fact a shorter way. Maybe s/he is short, and for the taller there is a shorter way that requires jumping a fence too high for the NPC. Maybe, unbenknownst to the NPC, there are roadworks taking place on his/her preferred route.



Right, okay, this makes sense to me. And, according to the OP, the NPC was taking the most direct route. Maybe the NPC rolled a Local or Streetwise check to find the most direct route, and got it. It's not opposed by the PCs. It's just static, as it'd be exactly the same whether or not it's opposed. And, according to the OP, they're taking the most direct route. However, changing the map or dismissing it wouldn't go over well in my group based off of a high PC roll. It'd be bypassing the internal consistency of the setting (setting or established fiction), and that's very much against what we want out of the game.



> Just as for the playes, so for the GM in resolving the NPC's action - there are any number of reasons why an intention could misfire in some way, and when there is something at stake, I'm not a big fan of the GM deciding unilaterally, without engaging the mechanics, that the NPC automatically succeeds.



I'm near-positive that after your initial post saying you'd use mechanics to resolve this, I quoted you and posted that I agree. _Why you assume I wouldn't use mechanics to resolve this is still exceptionally unclear to me_. I would let the NPC make a check to know the most direct route, but if he gets it, he gets it. PCs rolling high won't allow a new route, it'll just tell them the same route (assuming they aren't all amazing acrobats or the like, but if they were, they'd probably just say, "I want to run across the rooftops as the crow flies to the location we think he's headed" and be done with it). No, in a party that will vary in skill and likely in height, most of the time it'll be the same as the villains. And, I think saying so isn't unreasonable. YMMV.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Mort (Nov 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Perhaps [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] can chime in, but I didn't read the OP as suggesting that the established fiction be changed. As I read it, the suggestion was precisely that it was _not_establised in the shared fiction that there was no shorter route. (There may have been no alternative path indicated on the GM's map, but the GM's map is not the shared fiction - as Vincent Baker talks about here, the GM's map is the GM's initial plan for how to contribute content to the shared fiction.)




Honestly, it was a 10 second example (not directly pulled from a game,(though I've certainly seen variations of it) and at the time of posting I hadn't realy thought much about whether the fiction itself was established.

Obviously the fiction being not established makes things easier to change - as whether the villain is taking "the fastest" route is still an open question.

That said, the players don't see _my_ full map assuming I've even drawn one. I'm perfectly willing to change things if the group gives me a better option than the one I have in mind.


----------



## Mort (Nov 2, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group). Mort said:
> 
> To me, when he indicates "changing the reality of the game world as he planned it" and he has a drawn up map of the city with which he could reliably use up to this point as a part of the setting, changing it would be changing the setting (which is part of internal consistency, much the same way I'd consider "established fiction" to be).




You're not actualy expecting me to remember something from 10 pages ago are you? 

I suppose when writing "changing the reality of the game world" I had meant from an "In my head and on my map" perspective - quite likely the world has not changed for the players because they have not yet experienced it.

Now if they had (they had adventured in this exact area before, maybe even mapped it) it could potentially be more jarring. 

Not for my group though 1) they are quite laid back and don't mind a changing landscape (they are not big on immersion and actually find it tedious - a taste I have addapted to in DMing for them for years) 2) They're actually all about exploring new iterations of something they thought they knew (which is what they would take this as).


----------



## Imaro (Nov 2, 2011)

Mort said:


> Honestly, it was a 10 second example (not directly pulled from a game,(though I've certainly seen variations of it) and at the time of posting I hadn't realy thought much about whether the fiction itself was established.
> 
> Obviously the fiction being not established makes things easier to change - as whether the villain is taking "the fastest" route is still an open question.
> 
> That said, the players don't see _my_ full map assuming I've even drawn one. I'm perfectly willing to change things if the group gives me a *better* option than the one I have in mind.




Emphasis mine... see this is why I call it "Mother May I" instead of real narrative control. He's willing to change it *if* the group gives him something he deems better... otherwise if he doesn't think it's better he keeps it the same. At no point do the players have real control over the narrative in that situation, the DM maintains it.


----------



## Mort (Nov 2, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... see this is why I call it "Mother May I" instead of real narrative control. He's willing to change it *if* the group gives him something he deems better... otherwise if he doesn't think it's better he keeps it the same. At no point do the players have real control over the narrative in that situation, the DM maintains it.




From a strict sense yes. Since the DM filter is in place it's not technicaly player narrative control - at least in this instance. Though I still think there are degrees here, even *entertaining* the thought of a player changing the narrative without his character as a filter seems to get some people's gander up(and as this is a taste issue, there's nothing actually wrong with that).

I think that's going to be the situation in most D&D settings though as there are no real mechanics for players to truly (no DM filter) take control of the narrative from the DM. That's more reserved for games with fate points and the like (though even there the DM filter _usually_ exists)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 2, 2011)

Mort said:


> You're not actualy expecting me to remember something from 10 pages ago are you?
> 
> I suppose when writing "changing the reality of the game world" I had meant from an "In my head and on my map" perspective - quite likely the world has not changed for the players because they have not yet experienced it.
> 
> ...



I can't XP, but this post all makes sense to me. It is about tastes, and I don't think it's wrong to play the way your group does. And sorry if I put you on the spot with the OP, I didn't know it wasn't so literal or set. I'll work from a more "theoretical" point of view from now on. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Nov 3, 2011)

Mort said:


> Honestly, it was a 10 second example



I tried to give you sympathy XP for pouring over the entrails of your 10 second example, but apparently can't yet.



JamesonCourage said:


> If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If I have a map as GM, it's now set in the setting. I will not be changing it for convenience's sake.





Mort said:


> That said, the players don't see _my_ full map assuming I've even drawn one. I'm perfectly willing to change things if the group gives me a better option than the one I have in mind.



My approach is much closer to Mort's. I tend to do the same with NPC motivations, as per this quote from Paul Czege:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​
Of course, once it's been accepted by everyone at the table as part of the shared fiction, then it is settled unless it is somehow unsettled by agreement (a character within the fiction does something to change things in the fiction, or something goes wrong at the table and we all agree to a retcon, or whatever).



Mort said:


> I think that's going to be the situation in most D&D settings though as there are no real mechanics for players to truly (no DM filter) take control of the narrative from the DM.



This comment isn't intended as contradiction, but reflection and elaboration. Arguably in D&D, if the players - by application of the action resolution mechanics for their PCs - reduce a monster or NPC to zero hit points, then the GM is obliged to narrate that the NPC or monster is dead.

And a similar example came up in my game a couple of months ago with a skill challenge. After this episode, the players had won a skill challenge, which in effect meant that their PCs had taunted an enemy - whom they had run into at a formal dinner and were therefore precluded from confronting directly - into attacking them, and therefore betraying his true colours in front of all the assembled NPC worthies. In a subsequent session, I narrated some conduct by some NPC which only made sense if the allegiance of the PC's enemy had remained ambiguous after the skill challenge. One of my players reminded me of the skill challenge success, and that the success meant that the true colours of the enemy _had_ been exposed. I accepted the corerection and redescribed the situation appropriately.

I don't know where you (or others) put this on the spectrum of players' narrative control, but it felt like it at the time (at least to me as GM)!




JamesonCourage said:


> that was presumptuous of me. I apologize.



Thanks, though there's no need to apologise! It's an internet forum - everyone's doing their best to work out what the hell these other strangers are banging on about!



JamesonCourage said:


> I'm near-positive that after your initial post saying you'd use mechanics to resolve this, I quoted you and posted that I agree. _Why you assume I wouldn't use mechanics to resolve this is still exceptionally unclear to me_.



Well, in the reply to that post I did say that I was going to use your agreement to wedge you, but then qualified (in paranetheses) that I wasn't entirely sure how you would handle it, and so maybe wasn't wedging you but agreeing with you.

I think that in a subsequent post you said that autowin for the NPC was OK, and to me autowin implied "no mechanics, just GM fiat".

One interesting point in the neighbourhood is this: you have said that you would have the NPC do a Streetwise (or whatever) check, and if successful take the shortest route. The players could do the same for their PCs, and then if they succeeded too the chase would be on.

So each check is resolved not as part of a conflict, but as an independent factor in the situation. I personally prefer the BW way of doing it, which is that if the players win the oppposed check then the NPC failed - and that failure can be narrated in various ways that don't have to immediately reflect the PCs agency in the gameworld (for example, losing the opposed check could mean the NPC gets stuck in a street fair, even though the players winning their check for their PCs does _not_ correspond to the PCs somehow setting up a street fair). Skill challenges are meant to be handled the same way in 4e (which is pretty obvious, I think, from the structure of the mechanics, and becomes obvious if not expressly acknowledged in the example of play in the Rules Compendium). When the PCs fail on a check, the GM is free to narrate some sort of complication or adversity which isn't necessarily, within the gameworld, _caused_ by the PC failing at something (eg a player failing a diplomacy check could mean that, although the PC was very coureous etc, as s/he was speaking a bird flew overhead and crapped on the NPC's cloak, irritating the NPC and thus negating the PC's attempt to influence him/her through no fault of the PC's).

But this isn't a point about narrative control by players, but rather the introduction of a metagame element into action resolution.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2011)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> Well, in the reply to that post I did say that I was going to use your agreement to wedge you, but then qualified (in paranetheses) that I wasn't entirely sure how you would handle it, and so maybe wasn't wedging you but agreeing with you.




Dude, stop with the atomic wedgies.  

-------

Honestly, on a totally personal note, I think that granting limited narrative control (even to the point of dictating to the GM/DM) is a good thing.  

The one thing players almost always have in common is that their character is the most important thing in the game to that player.  Setting, story, exploration, whatever, all comes second to that player's character.  And rightly so.  A character is the only thing in a game that the player actually "owns".  It's the only thing the player has any direct control over and, by extention, the DM isn't supposed to put his grubby paws all over.  

Narrative control is a way to get players to engage in the setting.  By allowing, in certain circumstance, the player to directly say to the group, "This is what I think will make a better game" and enforcing that through the mechanics, you make every player at the table responsible for the game.  Without any narrative control, the quality of the game rests almost entirely on the shoulders of the DM.  No matter how good (or bad) the players are, if the DM isn't good, the game is never going to be good.

But, if you let the players have a small amount of direct influence, then everyone at the table can take some part in making the game better.  And, it checks and balances across the group.  If one player introduces something the rest of the group doesn't like, the rest of the group can use their limited narrative control resources to over rule that idea.  Again, the DM doesn't have to step in at all.  

The pyramid model of RPG's, where you have the DM at the top and the players underneath does not give the best results, IMNSHO.  It is better to allow everyone at the table to be at least partially, directly responsible for the quality of the game.


----------



## chaochou (Nov 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, if you let the players have a small amount of direct influence, then everyone at the table can take some part in making the game better.  And, it checks and balances across the group.  If one player introduces something the rest of the group doesn't like, the rest of the group can use their limited narrative control resources to over rule that idea.  Again, the DM doesn't have to step in at all.




I agree with this, and want to highlight that the idea of checks and balances is very important.

When you give players narrative control you move away from GM authoirity - but not to player authority. You end up with play based on consensus, where everyone at the table (including the GM) has to agree to a suggestion for it to be incorporated into the fiction.

In my experience, the implications of this kind of gaming by concensus do not receive enough attention.

It does not, for example, lead to a situation where players automatically try to narrate away in-game challenges. Why? Because players want those challenges. How could you possibly claim as a player to want a challenge and then narrate it away the moment you get the chance?

In my experience, players with narration rights tend to talk themselves into more trouble, not less. Just trouble of their choosing, which interests them, which will help define their character.

Also, it does not allow players to 'mess up' the GMs carefully planned ideas. Why? Because if you GM in this style you don't tend to have carefully planned ideas. You don't tend to have a detailed map of the city.

You have a loose framework of characters and their motivations, and some tense situations in which the PCs have a stake. GM-ing in this style feels like being a player  - you have to react, to adapt, to take new ideas and changes to the landscape on board and roll with them, to be just as willing as the players to discover things you didn't know about the gameworld. You sit down with ideas, but you create the world at the table with the players.

So it has some real strengths.

In fairness, it has some weaknesses to. Play can begin to feel directionless - the GM has less authority to keep 'the story' going, so if the players aren't careful in what they create you can suddenly find yourself with 10 'story arcs' none of which are being resolved. Games can feel like a never-ending soap opera rather than a movie.

It also relies heavily on players engaging with it. Quiet players, players who want to take a back seat, who won't put something out there - they can be difficult to deal with if they also have narration rights. As a playstyle it assumes pro-activeness on the part of players.

Tying into that, in my experience, you need players who make characters with weaknesses. Characters with beliefs that can be threatened, problems to be exploited, friendships to be tested - all that stuff. Reactive players, who don't provide such hooks, lead to difficult games.

This turned into a longer post than expected, but I guess - in answer to the OPs question... giving players narrative control is as good as the players make it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 3, 2011)

To Hussar's point, giving players real narrative control can be good for some people, but I don't think it is universally better than a more restricted approach. It ultimately boils down to preference and this is specific issue is one that people on both sides feel very passionately about.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 3, 2011)

chaochou said:


> I agree with this, and want to highlight that the idea of checks and balances is very important.
> 
> When you give players narrative control you move away from GM authoirity - but not to player authority. You end up with play based on consensus, where everyone at the table (including the GM) has to agree to a suggestion for it to be incorporated into the fiction.
> 
> ...




I've seen it happen -- both on the player-side and DM side, really.  It's like a Mary Sue syndrome.  There's this _really_ bad threat, see? But it evaporates and we win!  Yay!




> In my experience, players with narration rights tend to talk themselves into more trouble, not less. Just trouble of their choosing, which interests them, which will help define their character.




The same happens with strong proactive players in a typical character-narrative sandbox play.  The PCs engage with elements of their choosing and those elements are typically defined by their character motivations, desires, and weaknesses.



> Also, it does not allow players to 'mess up' the GMs carefully planned ideas. Why? Because if you GM in this style you don't tend to have carefully planned ideas. You don't tend to have a detailed map of the city.
> 
> You have a loose framework of characters and their motivations, and some tense situations in which the PCs have a stake. GM-ing in this style feels like being a player  - you have to react, to adapt, to take new ideas and changes to the landscape on board and roll with them, to be just as willing as the players to discover things you didn't know about the gameworld. You sit down with ideas, but you create the world at the table with the players.




And the same exists with sandbox play -- though you can easily have the detailed map in addition! The setting, and scene framing act as constraints on character action and may require thought, planning, and inventve resource use to achieve your desired result.



> So it has some real strengths.
> 
> In fairness, it has some weaknesses to. Play can begin to feel directionless - the GM has less authority to keep 'the story' going, so if the players aren't careful in what they create you can suddenly find yourself with 10 'story arcs' none of which are being resolved. Games can feel like a never-ending soap opera rather than a movie.
> 
> ...




It shares many of the same weaknesses as sandbox play.  The multiple story arcs and soap opera feel, I consider a feature not a bug.

Fundamentally, whta you are describing is a reactive environment and players that engage that environment.

_How_ players engage that environment -- whether through authorial control or through directed character action seems less important for the points you are making.

I think the moral here is "good players in a game style they like are good".


----------



## Janx (Nov 3, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> If the map of the city is drawn up, the path decided, and the map considered part of the setting, it's changing the fiction (to my group). Mort said:
> 
> To me, when he indicates "changing the reality of the game world as he planned it" and he has a drawn up map of the city with which he could reliably use up to this point as a part of the setting, changing it would be changing the setting (which is part of internal consistency, much the same way I'd consider "established fiction" to be).




Let's start with the city example.  The bad guy is running away.  He MIGHT be taking the best route.  Apparently the PCs know where he is going

When the PCs ask if there's a faster route, they are not necessarily asking to move streets around.   They are certainly seeking to gain a tactical advantage through information.

a) did the bad guy take the shortest commonly known route?
b) is there an uncommon route that is shorter still (like back alleys or cutting through Wang's diner).

Odds are good your map does not show Wang's diner on it nor if it has doors that would allow that path to exist.

As a GM, if you did not make some kind of knowledge roll for the NPC to take the best route, than all you have legitimately done is declared he took a route.  It's not fair to assume he's got perfect knowledge.

So when the PCs ask, if you didn't rolll, you can use the PCs roll as a skill challenge vs. the NPC's knowledge of the same city

I don't expect a GM to think of making a skill check for the NPC, especially for what might be an impromptu escape plan.  But when the players are trying to chase him, his ability to choose the best route is in competition with the players and as a race, that decision need be decided by a common tool.

The outcome need not result in streets shifting.  That would be nonsense.  It does mean that generation on non-declared world details might happen.  4th street bridge is closed for repairs, so while it is on the shortest route normally, it's a dead-end when you get there.  Wang's cuts out 75 feet on rounding that corner block.  Etc.  

It might be that the NPC is a visitor and planned his escape route to his rocket ship by studying the city map from the visitors bureau last week.  The city map that doesn't include alleyways or market streets that are not intended for through traffic.


As a GM, the moment the PCs are in contest with the NPC, the map and the NPCs ability to navigate it are called into question.  That can mean Run checks, Nevigation checks, etc.  

If you insist that the NPC took the absolute perfect path to the destination, you may be making a GMing mistake.

When the players ask if there's a shorter route, that's your opportunity to bring fairness and game rules back into the mix.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 3, 2011)

Janx said:


> Let's start with the city example.  The bad guy is running away.  He MIGHT be taking the best route.  Apparently the PCs know where he is going
> 
> When the PCs ask if there's a faster route, they are not necessarily asking to move streets around.   They are certainly seeking to gain a tactical advantage through information.
> 
> ...




I don't think it should be a opposed because they are really aren't vying against one another.

If A takes the best route, there is nothing B can do but take the same or less optimal route.

both should roll against a static DC that represents the city situation -- assuming the result is not obvious (i.e. a static DC so low that both succeed by "Taking a 1").

Whomever rolls sufficiently high takes the best route.  The more complex the environment with the greater the number of potential routes, the higher the static DC.

Now if A is taking the best route, and B is aware that is the best route (i.e. both groups beat the static DC), it is incumbent on B to try a different gambit or cede success to A.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The one thing players almost always have in common is that their character is the most important thing in the game to that player. Setting, story, exploration, whatever, all comes second to that player's character.




This is the core of the problem. The most important thing in the game for everyone should be having a good time and helping others do likewise. 

Competing special snowflakes are not the best thing for the game IMHO. 

Also, what is happening during the game is actual play, not narrative.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 3, 2011)

Janx said:


> To sum up, for me, it is standard game play to ask if something is present that logically does tend to exist in the typical environment(candlesticks in Dining Rooms, shortcuts on maps, rocks on roads, applecarts in markets, deer in forests) and that the GM is free to resolve the answer by their own method.
> 
> It is therefore accepted that the player is trying to lead or manipulate the GM into saying Yes so as to gain an advantage, but that is no more or less what a player and PC would try to do regardless of the GM's resolution mechanic.
> 
> It is a different thing to ask for unusual things (like a Teleport Pad in the woods) which are atypical for that kind of environment.  If the rules don't allow for stronger content suggestions (points to spend on Content) than the GM is within his right to say "No" outright as the player may be abusing the "clarifying question" principle.



Worth repeating, quoted for truth, plus-one, and hell yeah.

Could some kind poster drop an XP on [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] for me?


pemerton said:


> Just as for the playes, so for the GM in resolving the NPC's action - there are any number of reasons why an intention could misfire in some way, and when there is something at stake, I'm not a big fan of the GM deciding unilaterally, without engaging the mechanics, that the NPC automatically succeeds.



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.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, on a totally personal note, I think that granting limited narrative control (even to the point of dictating to the GM/DM) is a good thing.
> 
> The one thing players almost always have in common is that their character is the most important thing in the game to that player.  Setting, story, exploration, whatever, all comes second to that player's character.  And rightly so.  A character is the only thing in a game that the player actually "owns".  It's the only thing the player has any direct control over and, by extention, the DM isn't supposed to put his grubby paws all over.



So, it's okay for the players to dictate to the referee, but not the other way around?


----------



## Janx (Nov 3, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I don't think it should be a opposed because they are really aren't vying against one another.
> 
> If A takes the best route, there is nothing B can do but take the same or less optimal route.
> 
> ...




There are many different ways to use the rules to resolve it.

My theory is, the DM should not fiat that the NPC is ACTUALLY taking the fastest route.  Obviously, the NPC intends to.

If the GM is like me and didn't THINK of that possibility and just decided the NPC is going from point A to point B as fast as he can, the details do not matter until it intersects with the PCs interests.

At that point, if the roles were reversed, and the NPC was chasing the PCs, then the GM would probably do skill checks, etc.

In both cases, PCs would try to use their skills (running, navigation, streetwise) to get the best result they could.

Since the GM likely skipped that step for the NPC, when it collides with the player's, he's obligated to find a fair ruling to determine those details.

But ruling that the NPC has perfect knowledge of the city and therefore chooses perfect routing, whereas the PC has to roll for it smacks of unfair arbitration.  Especially if the NPC's background reflects less mastery of the subject than the PC.

Jameson seemed to advocate that his NPC has perfect knowledge and perfect routing.  Therefore, the best the PCs can do is to keep the pace with the NPC.

That does not sound like a fair chase.  And by fair, I mean one that actually applies the same rules to both parties.  It enforces the outcome that if the NPC is 3 rounds ahead of the PCs, the PCs can, at best, arrive 3 rounds after the NPC.  That is a predetermined outcome, one which reality may not reflect.

In reality, if I am 18 seconds behind you, chasing you down city streets and I know where you are headed, there are numerous factors that might slow me down or slow you down.  You might get stopped by a waggon for a few seconds.  One that has passed by the time I get there.  I might have better endurance and keep pace better.  I might be able to cut corners better, whereas the flow from 12 seconds ago forced you into heavier congestion that wasn't obvious as you rounded the corner.

The point is, the moment 2 sides contest the outcome (a race), both sides should follow some rules to determine who wins.  Even if the one side has an advantage or head start.  

Predetermining that the NPC side makes no mistakes causes an unfair standard that even when directly opposed, NPCs don't follow the same chance of failure rules.

What happens off camera or is uncontested is a different matter.  Namely because it's like the NPC took 20.  It can be assumed the NPC is successful because the PC isn't there taking steps to thwart it or react to it.  Additionally, it'd be a pain in the butt to role play your NPC against yourself as GM to verify he did everything he did.

Why does this matter?  It comes down to that if you have an 18 second lead to run through the city for 12 blocks, that you might beat me, even if we have the same stats.

If the NPC does not earn that victory by rolling for it like the PCs have to, you are cheating your players and in effect railroading an outcome.

Note, I concede that at the macro level, if 1 party has a head start over the other, the details may be glossed over and logically, the head start party will get there first by the same margin he started.

But once the players start drilling in, getting details, then those details matter and both parties are subject to the same possibilities.


----------



## Janx (Nov 3, 2011)

The Shaman said:


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




I agree with your post.  As a fellow GM, I of course am trying to convince others of my mindset on WHY there sometimes might be a shorter path.

If your map details really are good, then there may be no true shortcut.  But that's a per map and per circumstance decision, in my belief.

But as you point out, there may be other reasons why the PCs in pursuit may still catch up.


PS thanks for the XPish btw.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Nov 3, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> 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.




I don't think anyone is saying that you're a bad DM if you say there is no shortcut.  The shortcut is just a given concept standing in for the idea of allowing the players to engage the game.  If you say there's no shortcut, but then allow them to commandeer horses in order for a chance to succeed, you've still done more or less the same thing.  You've given the players a fighting chance rather than boxing them into a single, predetermined path.

While I can only speak for myself, from what I can tell what people have been saying is that a DM who isn't open to alternative options from the players is a bad DM.  How open is a matter of taste, and certainly not one I'm interested in debating.  Nonetheless, if the players come up with all the approaches you listed and the DM shuts every one of them down out of hand, that seems to me to be a pretty good indication that you're dealing with a bad, railroading DM.

The whole point that I've been trying to make is about allowing the players a fair chance to attempt actions that their characters could realistically attempt.  As I said in my first post, if there isn't a shortcut then there simply isn't a shortcut.  That's fine.  The DM saying "My NPC autowins and there's absolutely nothing I'll allow you guys to do to stop it," on the other hand, is not okay.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, on a totally personal note, I think that granting limited narrative control (even to the point of dictating to the GM/DM) is a good thing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Narrative control is a way to get players to engage in the setting.



Agreed. A lot of the interesting parts of my setting have been built by my players (mostly by working out from their ideas for their PCs).



The Shaman said:


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



Agreed.



Nagol said:


> I don't think it should be a opposed because they are really aren't vying against one another.



This goes to a point I made upthread in replying to JamesonCourage. What you say is true _under a purely simulatoninst conception of what opposed checks mean_. But that is not the right conception for all games. BW assumes that opposed checks are used to work out who wins in a conflict, but it doesn't assume that, because A's check is higher than B's, and B therefore loses, that B's loss is because of something that A did.

As I also pointed out there, 4e skill challenges work in a similar way. The complications that result from failed skill checks on the part of the players need not, within the fiction, be consequences of things the players did or didn't do. The GM can introduce an external complication as a response to a failed check.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Of course, once it's been accepted by everyone at the table as part of the shared fiction, then it is settled unless it is somehow unsettled by agreement (a character within the fiction does something to change things in the fiction, or something goes wrong at the table and we all agree to a retcon, or whatever).



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.



> This comment isn't intended as contradiction, but reflection and elaboration. Arguably in D&D, if the players - by application of the action resolution mechanics for their PCs - reduce a monster or NPC to zero hit points, then the GM is obliged to narrate that the NPC or monster is dead.
> 
> And a similar example came up in my game a couple of months ago with a skill challenge. After this episode, the players had won a skill challenge, which in effect meant that their PCs had taunted an enemy - whom they had run into at a formal dinner and were therefore precluded from confronting directly - into attacking them, and therefore betraying his true colours in front of all the assembled NPC worthies. In a subsequent session, I narrated some conduct by some NPC which only made sense if the allegiance of the PC's enemy had remained ambiguous after the skill challenge. One of my players reminded me of the skill challenge success, and that the success meant that the true colours of the enemy _had_ been exposed. I accepted the corerection and redescribed the situation appropriately.
> 
> I don't know where you (or others) put this on the spectrum of players' narrative control, but it felt like it at the time (at least to me as GM)!



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.



> Thanks, though there's no need to apologise! It's an internet forum - everyone's doing their best to work out what the hell these other strangers are banging on about!



Couldn't XP. I'm glad there's no hard feelings 



> Well, in the reply to that post I did say that I was going to use your agreement to wedge you, but then qualified (in paranetheses) that I wasn't entirely sure how you would handle it, and so maybe wasn't wedging you but agreeing with you.
> 
> I think that in a subsequent post you said that autowin for the NPC was OK, and to me autowin implied "no mechanics, just GM fiat".



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.



> One interesting point in the neighbourhood is this: you have said that you would have the NPC do a Streetwise (or whatever) check, and if successful take the shortest route. The players could do the same for their PCs, and then if they succeeded too the chase would be on.



Just about, yes.



> So each check is resolved not as part of a conflict, but as an independent factor in the situation. I personally prefer the BW way of doing it, which is that if the players win the oppposed check then the NPC failed - and that failure can be narrated in various ways that don't have to immediately reflect the PCs agency in the gameworld (for example, losing the opposed check could mean the NPC gets stuck in a street fair, even though the players winning their check for their PCs does _not_ correspond to the PCs somehow setting up a street fair). Skill challenges are meant to be handled the same way in 4e (which is pretty obvious, I think, from the structure of the mechanics, and becomes obvious if not expressly acknowledged in the example of play in the Rules Compendium). When the PCs fail on a check, the GM is free to narrate some sort of complication or adversity which isn't necessarily, within the gameworld, _caused_ by the PC failing at something (eg a player failing a diplomacy check could mean that, although the PC was very coureous etc, as s/he was speaking a bird flew overhead and crapped on the NPC's cloak, irritating the NPC and thus negating the PC's attempt to influence him/her through no fault of the PC's).
> 
> But this isn't a point about narrative control by players, but rather the introduction of a metagame element into action resolution.



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 



Janx said:


> Let's start with the city example.  The bad guy is running away.  He MIGHT be taking the best route.  Apparently the PCs know where he is going
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> As a GM, if you did not make some kind of knowledge roll for the NPC to take the best route, than all you have legitimately done is declared he took a route.  It's not fair to assume he's got perfect knowledge.



Thus, my statement:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Right, okay, this makes sense to me. And, according to the OP, the NPC was taking the most direct route. Maybe the NPC rolled a Local or Streetwise check to find the most direct route, and got it. It's not opposed by the PCs.
> 
> [AND]
> 
> Sometimes, I'll answer yes or no with no roll involved (I have a PC that's currently designing a city, is a master craftsman, and has a 22 Int and an 18 Wis). If he asked, "is there a faster way through the city?", I probably wouldn't make him roll. He designed it, he's incredibly intelligent with a great memory, and it's his profession. He just knows.



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.



> So when the PCs ask, if you didn't rolll, you can use the PCs roll as a skill challenge vs. the NPC's knowledge of the same city



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 don't expect a GM to think of making a skill check for the NPC, especially for what might be an impromptu escape plan.  But when the players are trying to chase him, his ability to choose the best route is in competition with the players and as a race, that decision need be decided by a common tool.



I agree, and that's why I'd prefer an unopposed skill check from each party.



> The outcome need not result in streets shifting.  That would be nonsense.  It does mean that generation on non-declared world details might happen.  4th street bridge is closed for repairs, so while it is on the shortest route normally, it's a dead-end when you get there.  Wang's cuts out 75 feet on rounding that corner block.  Etc.



I feel unopposed (and skill challengleess) checks cover this adequately.



> It might be that the NPC is a visitor and planned his escape route to his rocket ship by studying the city map from the visitors bureau last week.  The city map that doesn't include alleyways or market streets that are not intended for through traffic.



It might be. That's what the unopposed Streetwise, Knowledge (local), or whatever is for.



> As a GM, the moment the PCs are in contest with the NPC, the map and the NPCs ability to navigate it are called into question.  That can mean Run checks, Nevigation checks, etc.



Yep, I totally agree.



> If you insist that the NPC took the absolute perfect path to the destination, you may be making a GMing mistake.



I'm pretty sure I covered this both before this reply, and in it.



> When the players ask if there's a shorter route, that's your opportunity to bring fairness and game rules back into the mix.



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 



> pemerton: I think we're in agreement on objecting to the NPC being given an autowin.



Between this post and a previous reply, I hope this clears it up:


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> What I think is unreasonable is the GM letting his/her NPCs autowin when the players have a contrary stake in the conflict.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> (1) That's not unreasonable to me if it makes sense. That is, looking at the game from a sense of internal consistency (not changing established facts, as the OP suggests be the case when the a shortcut would be created). To some groups, such as mine, this style of play is preferred, and much more rewarding than a more narrative style (and thus more fun for us).
> 
> (2) Having the most direct route is not an auto-win necessarily. You can still catch up, distract, trip up, etc. the villain. I think it's unfair to paint it as "you should be able to have a chance of cutting him off or it's unreasonable." That, to me, is unreasonable.



As always, play what you like 




Janx said:


> Jameson seemed to advocate that his NPC has perfect knowledge and perfect routing.  Therefore, the best the PCs can do is to keep the pace with the NPC.



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.



> Predetermining that the NPC side makes no mistakes causes an unfair standard that even when directly opposed, NPCs don't follow the same chance of failure rules.



See, this is true, but I have no idea where you're getting this assumption from. It sounds like a simple misunderstanding.



Fanaelialae said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that you're a bad DM if you say there is no shortcut.  The shortcut is just a given concept standing in for the idea of allowing the players to engage the game.  If you say there's no shortcut, but then allow them to commandeer horses in order for a chance to succeed, you've still done more or less the same thing.  You've given the players a fighting chance rather than boxing them into a single, predetermined path.
> 
> While I can only speak for myself, from what I can tell what people have been saying is that a DM who isn't open to alternative options from the players is a bad DM.  How open is a matter of taste, and certainly not one I'm interested in debating.  Nonetheless, if the players come up with all the approaches you listed and the DM shuts every one of them down out of hand, that seems to me to be a pretty good indication that you're dealing with a bad, railroading DM.
> 
> The whole point that I've been trying to make is about allowing the players a fair chance to attempt actions that their characters could realistically attempt.  As I said in my first post, if there isn't a shortcut then there simply isn't a shortcut.  That's fine.  The DM saying "My NPC autowins and there's absolutely nothing I'll allow you guys to do to stop it," on the other hand, is not okay.



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


----------



## Janx (Nov 3, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> See, this is true, but I have no idea where you're getting this assumption from. It sounds like a simple misunderstanding.





Based on your response in #179, I concur that I misunderstood your position, and that in effect we both agree.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 4, 2011)

Janx said:


> Based on your response in #179, I concur that I misunderstood your position, and that in effect we both agree.



I can't XP, but I'm glad we cleared it up. I like agreeing with other posters. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is the core of the problem. The most important thing in the game for everyone should be having a good time and helping others do likewise.
> 
> Competing special snowflakes are not the best thing for the game IMHO.
> 
> Also, what is happening during the game is actual play, not narrative.




Well thank you.  Yes, you are 100% right, but I would have thought that this didn't actually need stating.  

Now, inside the game the most important thing to any player is his or her character.  Is this really a controversial point?



The Shaman said:


> So, it's okay for the players to dictate to the referee, but not the other way around?




In a word, yes.  Do you, as a DM, tell your players, "Sorry, no, your character wouldn't do that"?  

Do your players say, "My character is the third son of a minor noble."?

The players have always been able to dictate elements of their character to the DM and the DM has never been allowed to dictate character elements to the player.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> To Hussar's point, giving players real narrative control can be good for some people, but I don't think it is universally better than a more restricted approach. It ultimately boils down to preference and this is specific issue is one that people on both sides feel very passionately about.




Oh, totally.  And, to be fair, I did say that this was only my opinion, not incontrovertible fact.  I do think games work better when the players have limited editorial control.  While that does allow them to occasionally over rule the DM, since the DM sets the baseline all the time, it's not that big of a deal that the DM doesn't also have this power.

Again, since the DM sets the parameters of the scenario, controls every single element of the game world except the PC's, and has the entirety of the game at his fingertips, allowing the players to dictate to the DM in very limited fashion isn't exactly a huge game changer.  The Dm still gets to wear his big daddy pants all he likes, it's just that once in a while, he has to go pantless.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 4, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> 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.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In these situations, the way I avoid those "hiccups" is to introduce external elements - like the unexpected street fair, or the bird crapping on someone's cloak during negotiations - which then explain the outcome that has been mechanically determined without needing to posit that anyone (PC or NPC) suddenly became incompetent.

The "cost" of doing it this way is being prepared to sever the link between making a check where a PC's skill number is used, and interpreting that check as reflecting nothing but the PC's effort within the fiction. You have to be prepared to narrate the outcome of the check using director's stance.

I think Burning Wheel is an interesting example of this. Like RQ, RM or classic Traveller it has very simulationist-seeming character building mechanics, with detailed skill lists, intricate interaction between skill bonuses and stat bonuses, rules for improving by doing and by training, etc, etc. And even it's action resolution mechanics begin in a simulationist way - the GM is urged, for example, to set difficulties based on the objective difficulty of the situation in the gameworld, and not in any sort of relative way (so very different from 4e, HeroQuest, Maelstrom etc).

But then its action resolution mechanics take a very non-simulationist turn. In particular, when a skill check fails in BW, the GM is urged to focus not on failure or success at the _task_, but failure or success at the _intent_. Thus, failure on an influence check might represent not an objective failure of your guy to be convincing, but rather that it turns out that the NPC knew and hated your father, so turns out to be more hostile to your offer than you expected. The GM is actively encouraged to use this sort of external, meta-gaming approach to describing the outcomes of checks - and especially failed checks - as part of the techniques for keeping the game moving.

A very ingenious blending of traditional simulationist, and indie, sensibilities.

(Another ingenious thing about Burning Wheel is this: to advance by doing (rather than by practice) requires a certain mix of checks at a certain range of difficulties. So players have inbuilt incentives to sometimes take on hard checks, and sometimes easier checks, without the GM having to manipulate the ingame situation or the mechanics. In my view, a very clever way of resolving the problem of only ever having the best-suited PC tackle a given challenge.)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 4, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In these situations, the way I avoid those "hiccups" is to introduce external elements - like the unexpected street fair, or the bird crapping on someone's cloak during negotiations - which then explain the outcome that has been mechanically determined without needing to posit that anyone (PC or NPC) suddenly became incompetent.
> 
> The "cost" of doing it this way is being prepared to sever the link between making a check where a PC's skill number is used, and interpreting that check as reflecting nothing but the PC's effort within the fiction. You have to be prepared to narrate the outcome of the check using director's stance.
> 
> ...



Interesting post. I can't XP yet, but I find the mixture of simulationist/narrativist more palatable than a more narrative approach. Thanks for the insight, I found it interesting. As always, play what you like


----------



## Fanaelialae (Nov 4, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> 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




Thanks!

You can call it improvisation or narrative control or whatever you prefer.  Personally, I think introducing the term narrative control confused the discussion more than it helped.  As I mentioned upthread, people were using it differently and I think we all started to focus too much on terminology as opposed to concept.  

I believe that it was a miscommunication issue.  I don't really see the necessity of suggesting that anyone was being duplicitous.  In retrospect, it seems to me that some folks were using the shortcut as an example of " player improvisation," while others were focusing on the idea of the shortcut itself and the potential implications thereof.  That was probably at least part of the disconnect.

Secondary to that, just because someone brings up the point that "X is bad DMing" doesn't mean that it's being directed at anyone in the thread.  In one of my posts I believe I even mentioned that I've had the misfortune to play with such a railroading DM.

YMMV


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 4, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> Thanks!
> 
> You can call it improvisation or narrative control or whatever you prefer.  Personally, I think introducing the term narrative control confused the discussion more than it helped.  As I mentioned upthread, people were using it differently and I think we all started to focus too much on terminology as opposed to concept.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I agree that it might just be a miscommunication issue. I do think some people in this thread have been purposefully mischaracterizing other posts to further their point (usually by using hyperbole), but I don't think you have (and I do think it's happened on both sides of the issue, here). Just my thoughts on it, though, and I reserve the right to be completely mistaken. As always, play what you like


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 4, 2011)

To play the devil's advocate:


Hussar said:


> Do you, as a DM, tell your players, "Sorry, no, your character wouldn't do that"?



Maybe not in these words, but, yeah, I've been doing that:
"Have you considered X? Are you really sure your character would do that?"

Of course the player gets the last word on his character's actions, but their decisions can be ill-informed and 'out-of-character' without them realizing it.
This is something that often depends on the *game setting* and how familiar the player is with it.


> Do your players say, "My character is the third son of a minor noble."?



Nope, they get to roll on the family and social standing charts 

This is something that depends on the *game system*. In Runequest if you roll that you're a farmer's son, then that's it. There are many systems that require the expenditure of a character-building resource to define the character's social standing.

Trying to gain something for nothing by writing it in your character's back story is something I frown upon. However, I generally prefer saying 'yes, but' instead of 'no', i.e. if I sense story potential in something I'll allow it 'with a twist'.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In a word, yes. Do you, as a DM, tell your players, "Sorry, no, your character wouldn't do that"?
> 
> Do your players say, "My character is the third son of a minor noble."?
> 
> The players have always been able to dictate elements of their character to the DM and the DM has never been allowed to dictate character elements to the player.




Players always get to make the decisions for thier characters. This is not the same as dictating character elements.

"I shoot a 10d6 lighting bolt out of my mouth to stop the fleeing bad guy" 

Its a character element so this should be fine right?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Players always get to make the decisions for thier characters. This is not the same as dictating character elements.
> 
> "I shoot a 10d6 lighting bolt out of my mouth to stop the fleeing bad guy"
> 
> Its a character element so this should be fine right?




Speaking of hyperbole.  

Do you have this ability in your character (ie, 10th level wizard forex)?  Or, do you have in place a mechanic which allows for limited narrative control that would allow for this to occur?

If not, then no, it would not be fine.

The problem I see is that narrative control being given to the players is automatically painted as the players having 100% control over all elements of play 100% of the time.

I would suggest actually reading a few games that allow for limited narrative control to be exercised by players before actually participating in the conversation.  It saves a lot of time from having to repeat endlessly what granting limited narrative control means.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Speaking of hyperbole.
> ...
> 
> The problem I see is that narrative control being given to the players is automatically painted as the players having 100% control over all elements of play 100% of the time.
> ...




Hmm, that's not the problem I'm seeing at all.  The problem I'm seeing is that some poeple want the definition of (limited) narrative control to be so broad as to have very little to no distinction between actual narrative control on the part of the players and players seeking DM fiat.  I'm curious, where do you draw the line between the two?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Speaking of hyperbole.
> 
> Do you have this ability in your character (ie, 10th level wizard forex)? Or, do you have in place a mechanic which allows for limited narrative control that would allow for this to occur?
> 
> ...




I'm quite familliar with the concept and am able to enjoy and appreciate games written with this as a design concept. I really like HEX and Old School Hack which feature these elements and I can get behind the idea when playing them.

D&D just isn't one of those games. If we are talking about this stuff as it applies to games that are written for it then ok. Trying to shoehorn it into every game no matter what is something different.


----------



## Janx (Nov 4, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Interesting post. I can't XP yet, but I find the mixture of simulationist/narrativist more palatable than a more narrative approach. Thanks for the insight, I found it interesting. As always, play what you like




I'm not sure what you mean with these terms, or whether you would use the method from pemerton that you quoted or not.

Since you used a  "but", it sounds like you would not.  Your terms seem contradictory.  A purely narrative approach would have involved not die rolls or skills checks.  Pem's approach struck me as combining simulation rules into the narrative, the very thing you said you prefer.

what I get from pemerton's post is:

by default, the NPC is going to do X
the PCs object and are going to try to prevent X
figure out what rules/skills apply and make some die rolls to find out who wins
based on the results, narrate a description that supports the result without contradicting established fact and maintaing plausibility and setting consistency.


----------



## Janx (Nov 4, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm quite familliar with the concept and am able to enjoy and appreciate games written with this as a design concept. I really like HEX and Old School Hack which feature these elements and I can get behind the idea when playing them.
> 
> D&D just isn't one of those games. If we are talking about this stuff as it applies to games that are written for it then ok. Trying to shoehorn it into every game no matter what is something different.




this is a good point.  I play D&D.  I don't houserule it much, and while I use it for a lot of kinds of games, I don't want to buy another game or turn it into another game.

I could do without the big fancy academic words like simulationist or narrative control.  Nobody agrees on their meaning.

But I do recognize, that for all the eons D&D has existed, something fishy is going on when players ask questions.  They are both trying to get information, and trying to manipulate the situation.

It's generally accepted that some level of that is OK as far as the player manipulating the game world.

It's also accepted that some facts are beyond a players ability to manipulate or determine, even for themselves.  

Chargen rules or GM approval rules limit what your PC can have for a background.  Game rules are usually quite clear in limiting your PCs ability to move, fight or shoot fireballs from his mouth.

And if we ratchet this up further, the argument of "That's not what your character would do" has existed for as long as D&D has existed.  Right or wrong, when a player says he is playing X kind of character and then wants his PC to do -X which goes against what he declared his PC was like, the GM is in a pickle.

Does he warn the PC and threaten the player's "narrative" control?
Does he block the PC action, and negate the player's "narrative" control?
Does he let it happen, and damage the internal consistency of the world?
Does he let it happen, and create consequences for it as part of the game?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 4, 2011)

Janx said:


> I'm not sure what you mean with these terms, or whether you would use the method from pemerton that you quoted or not.



I might use them in a different genre, using a system different from my own.



> Since you used a  "but", it sounds like you would not.  Your terms seem contradictory.  A purely narrative approach would have involved not die rolls or skills checks.  Pem's approach struck me as combining simulation rules into the narrative, the very thing you said you prefer.



I prefer more simulationist games. Knowing that, it's easy to see that I'd prefer a more simulationist narrative game over simply a more narrative game. It brings the base back to simulation, which is more palatable to my personal tastes. That's all I was saying.



> what I get from pemerton's post is:
> 
> by default, the NPC is going to do X
> the PCs object and are going to try to prevent X
> ...



Right, which is more narrative than I prefer most of the time, because it leaves room for "setting luck" to help or hurt on the check. By "setting luck", I mean the setting getting involved to save the day, and make the check make sense.

For example, if a villain gets +20 on their Streetwise check, odds are they know the best route to where they're headed. However, the GM initiates a skill challenge, letting the PCs contribute. One PC contributes a "shortcut" with a Streetwise check of his own, even though his bonus is only at +15. He succeeds, and the GM rules that he leads them down a parallel street while pursuing the villain, because he knows that today is the day of a parade, and that the villain will be funneled closer to their street, saving them precious time. While this makes sense, it's utilizing "setting luck" to avoid "hiccups" in the internal consistency of the game. It's the "as a matter of fact, now that you've rolled this high, the setting adds this element that wasn't there before." That's a little too much narrative control in my fantasy-genre game, but that's me. Tastes differ.

However, when running a game with a little more narrative control for the players (like Mutants and Masterminds 2e), I don't mind the approach. For example, when injured in M&M, you have to roll a Toughness save. At one point, one of the players was finally hit, and he was the least tough of the group. And it wasn't a hit, it was a crit. He used the remaining Hero Points (player narrative control tokens) to grab a feat that let him take a 20 on the Toughness save by spending a Hero Point, and then spent a Hero Point on it. When I described the scene, his character slipped while the enemy nearly hit him, but a different villain (who they were in the middle of saving) remote controlled his power suit into the way, which absorbed most of the impact for the player. This was very much messing with the narrative to fit the scene in a consistent way, but it's less simulationist than I like in a fantasy-genre game (personally, of course).

It just depends on the game for me. I don't think it's wrong to play with a narrative style. I think a narrative/simulationist approach is more palatable than a more narrative approach. Does this help clear things up?

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Nov 4, 2011)

Janx said:


> A purely narrative approach would have involved not die rolls or skills checks.



I'm pretty sure that by "narrative" JC means "in the style of narrativist/indie games". In the jargon of Forge-influenced indie game design, resolution with die rolls or skill checks is called "drama" (as opposed to "fortune"). But there is no special link between drama resolution and narrativist play. "Narrativist" play, here, means play which is aimed less at immersive exploration of the gameworld, and more at the GM and the players pushing thematic buttons. The slogans that get used at the Forge are "The right to dreaam" (simulationist) vs "Story now" (narrativist).

Another way of capturing the difference, I think, is this: A few days ago I was talking to one of my players about different games, and he said that one thing that he likes about 4e is that, rather than "being" his PC, the system lets him "play" his PC. Which I interpret as meaning that the play experience is not so much immersion/exploration, but deliberate choices to push the game (and the PC) into interesting and engaging situations.



JamesonCourage said:


> I prefer more simulationist games. Knowing that, it's easy to see that I'd prefer a more simulationist narrative game over simply a more narrative game. It brings the base back to simulation, which is more palatable to my personal tastes. That's all I was saying.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think it's wrong to play with a narrative style. I think a narrative/simulationist approach is more palatable than a more narrative approach. Does this help clear things up?



For what it's worth, I didn't have any trouble following your post.


ExploderWizard said:


> D&D just isn't one of those games.



Two questions.

First, are you including 4e here? I think it's highly arguable that 4e is such a game.

Second, isn't the classic spirit of D&D rules improvisation and the published books as guidelines, not rules? So what's wrong with people bringing indie techniques into their D&D games?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm pretty sure that by "narrative" JC means "in the style of narrativist/indie games".



For the section of your post that involved me, I'd say you're right on with my intentions and meanings. I think we're on the same page. As always, play what you like


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2011)

Personally I wasn't using Narrative in the forge sense, just in the general sense of describing things that happen and the build of events over the course of the game session.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 5, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Hmm, that's not the problem I'm seeing at all.  The problem I'm seeing is that some poeple want the definition of (limited) narrative control to be so broad as to have very little to no distinction between actual narrative control on the part of the players and players seeking DM fiat.  I'm curious, where do you draw the line between the two?




Is the player's narrative control contradicting established facts in the campaign?

That's pretty much where I'd draw the line.  No, the player's character cannot shoot lightning from his mouth, because it's been established in the game world that this character isn't innately magical and has no actual means of doing so.

OTOH, going by the original example, there are no established facts which are being contradicted.  "Is there a shortcut" is not contradicting (presumably) anything.  If it is contradicting things, then it would not be limited narrative control, but rather, outright full power narrative control.

The funny thing is, everyone seems to jump to this sort of thing whenever this conversation comes up.  "We cannot possibly give that level of control to the players because they'll be douchebags and start abusing it" is about what's being said here.

My question always is, why are you playing with people you cannot trust to not screw over your campaign?  There are a hundred different ways a player can deep six your campaign if he wants to.  What does it matter if you add a hundred and first way?

Adding this sort of thing to D&D is trivially easy.  It simply requires a slight shift in the DM.  Or, to put it another way, the DM has to relax the sphincter just a little and let the players have a bit more say in how things run and trust that the players are just as interested in having a good game as the DM.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2011)

For me. The issue isn't about the players mesding up the GM's campaign, it is about my experience of the game as a player. When players have too much control of the narrative The setting just feels less objective and less a thing on its own to me. That is why I like the GM as consistent source of setting material. I'd much rather focus on my character's experience of the setting and have his control over it be limited to his abilities (ie he can try to exert some control of the setting through interacting with it; my influence over setting as player begins and ends with my character).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 5, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> For me. The issue isn't about the players mesding up the GM's campaign, it is about my experience of the game as a player. When players have too much control of the narrative The setting just feels less objective and less a thing on its own to me. That is why I like the GM as consistent source of setting material. I'd much rather focus on my character's experience of the setting and have his control over it be limited to his abilities (ie he can try to exert some control of the setting through interacting with it; my influence over setting as player begins and ends with my character).



This deserves XP (which I sadly cannot give). Players not having narrative control beyond in-character interaction isn't a bad thing, it's a preference thing. As soon as people accept that -and stop framing it as an uptight GM thing- the easier these conversations will be. As always, play what you like


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> This deserves XP (which I sadly cannot give). Players not having narrative control beyond in-character interaction isn't a bad thing, it's a preference thing. As soon as people accept that -and stop framing it as an uptight GM thing- the easier these conversations will be. As always, play what you like




Exactly. And I would even add that there are some campaign styles where I prefer players having some narrative control (if I were playing something cinematic in the style of pirates of the carribbean or indiana jones for example). It just isn't my default preference and not what I expect from standard D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 5, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> I like the GM as consistent source of setting material. I'd much rather focus on my character's experience of the setting and have his control over it be limited to his abilities (ie he can try to exert some control of the setting through interacting with it; my influence over setting as player begins and ends with my character).



Is it OK to explore the parameters of this a bit?

First, I assume that when you make your PC you make some decisions about your PC's origin and backstory that involve exercising narrative control over the setting (because your PC presumably didn't choose the circumstances and content of his/her birth and biography).

Second, suppose your PC backstory says nothing about siblings or other relatives. Would you ever ask the GM to introduce such an NPC (or even suggest that, for example, you might have a relative in your home village)? Or would you leave all this in the hands of the GM?

A third thing I'm interested in relates to a current element of my own game. The PCs in my game recently fought a group of pirate thugs, and one of the thugs - their leader - escaped. One of the PCs, who is reestablishing a temple that is located on the same island in the town as the docks and the pirates, wants to recruit the pirates as guards, tarrif collectors and tithe collectors for his temple. I know this because the player of that PC emailed me explaining what he wanted to do.

Now, I hadn't really given much thought to the personality of this pirate leader beyond what came out in the combat that took place. But the player's plans oblige me to ask myself, "Is this pirate leader amenable to becoming chief guard and tax collector for a temple instead?" And given that one of my players wants this to happen, and given that it will not make any significant difference to the pointy end of play, but will be primarily a background thing, I'm strongly inclined to answer "Yes".

This is a player, de facto, influencing the setting not via his PC, but by stating plans to me as GM which then incline me as GM to decide that the setting (in this case, the personality of a particular NPC) is one sort of thing and not another.

Is this the sort of non-PC-mediated influence over setting that you don't like in D&D?


----------



## Mort (Nov 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> ...A third thing I'm interested in relates to a current element of my own game. The PCs in my game recently fought a group of pirate thugs, and one of the thugs - their leader - escaped. One of the PCs, who is reestablishing a temple that is located on the same island in the town as the docks and the pirates, wants to recruit the pirates as guards, tarrif collectors and tithe collectors for his temple. I know this because the player of that PC emailed me explaining what he wanted to do.
> 
> Now, I hadn't really given much thought to the personality of this pirate leader beyond what came out in the combat that took place. But the player's plans oblige me to ask myself, "Is this pirate leader amenable to becoming chief guard and tax collector for a temple instead?" And given that one of my players wants this to happen, and given that it will not make any significant difference to the pointy end of play, but will be primarily a background thing, I'm strongly inclined to answer "Yes".
> 
> ...




I had something very similar come up in a prior game. The players inherrited a chunk of land that they had previously been involved with. There was a highwayman on that chunk of land that had previously erm.. divested the players of much of their valuables.

When the players returned to the land they were *much* more powerful and had quite the bit of fun showing the highwayman the "error of his ways." I had not thought much beyond this point (intending the highwayman to either rot in prison, get beheaded or quitely slink away or some such). The players, however, decided to make him their tax collector! 

He held this "post" through the rest of the campaign (which lasted another 3 years and 11 levels or so after this point). It added a fun element that I would never have thought of/added myself.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2011)

No (however I don't like it when GMs include things like relatives because players ask). I am reallt talking about more direct narrative control after character creation. If I understand the situation, the player is just declaring his pcs intention in advance. All that is doing is giving you more time to think about it. I don't see this as real narrative control, and the player is still acting from his character's pov. 

If he had said something like "i want some pirates to show up so I can recruit them" and you obliged, that would be more in the realm of what I am discussing.

Also, note I never said I objected to the approach in the first place, just that it isn't my prefered style.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2011)

Pemerton, re-reading you post and will amend slightly. As a player I wouldn't want you to have the npc be ammenable to the suggestion simply because I expressed interest in it. I'd much rather you do so based on the NPC's personality, motives and history. If you hadn't given thought to those things, then I'd at least prefer you decide based on the liklihood of such a character type being amenable. As a player (not a gm) I hate things like wish lists, whether that be items or story archs. I love pcs being pro-active, I just don't like the GM tailoring outcomes to players (much prefer things get resolved through character interaction).


----------



## Imaro (Nov 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Is the player's narrative control contradicting established facts in the campaign?




Established with who? In a game that is run in a more traditional manner, things can certainly be established in the world that the PC's do not know about yet. 



Hussar said:


> That's pretty much where I'd draw the line. No, the player's character cannot shoot lightning from his mouth, because it's been established in the game world that this character isn't innately magical and has no actual means of doing so.
> 
> OTOH, going by the original example, there are no established facts which are being contradicted. "Is there a shortcut" is not contradicting (presumably) anything. If it is contradicting things, then it would not be limited narrative control, but rather, outright full power narrative control.




So when you say "established" you really mean "established with/by the players". Now if I as DM have already decided that the villain has taken the shortest route... then why should a PC who is looking for a shorter route succeed? That particular avenue is not viable at this point (I don't see how this is any different than deciding a NPC doesn't respond well to intimidation??)... If I as DM have taken the time to establish this in my notes, on a map or whatever... I would assume it is important to the narrative thus why should it suddenly change? Especially if there are other avenues in which to overcome this particular challenge. Why is a story where they find a shorter route... better than a mad dash through a crowded street using footwork (athletics and/or acrobatics), quick wits and keen eyes(insight and/or perception), while not alerting unddue attention (stealth and/or streetwise) to slowly gain on the villain?

My other question is what is the limit? I mean does the DM try his hardest to accomodate each and every idea that someone comes up with to change the narrative as long as it isn't contradicting an established fact? Does the DM only get narrative control when the PC's don't want it? What if two PC's want the narrative to go in a different direction...who wins out? 




Hussar said:


> The funny thing is, everyone seems to jump to this sort of thing whenever this conversation comes up. "We cannot possibly give that level of control to the players because they'll be douchebags and start abusing it" is about what's being said here.
> 
> My question always is, why are you playing with people you cannot trust to not screw over your campaign? There are a hundred different ways a player can deep six your campaign if he wants to. What does it matter if you add a hundred and first way?




See my problems isn't in the giving of narrative control to players, however in a game where there is no structure set up to account for it (in other words, something to make it a limited resource) it becomes what I would call the "uber power". You see in essence this is the solve anything by creating a counter spell...spell. And I hate to say this but even strongly narrative games realize that given the opportunity, most players do want things to go their way and if they can will always make it so. That's why games like FATE have compels... where the PC's have to go into incovenient/dangerous/etc. situations in order to replenish the narrartive control pool... because even these games recognize there has to be a limiter on narrative control of the game so it doesn't become too easy and that the easisest answer doesn't always make the best game or story. 




Hussar said:


> Adding this sort of thing to D&D is trivially easy. It simply requires a slight shift in the DM. Or, to put it another way, the DM has to relax the sphincter just a little and let the players have a bit more say in how things run and trust that the players are just as interested in having a good game as the DM.




Everyone's defintion of a "good game" is not the same. I think in general it is harder for many players (though by no means all) to see an all-encompassing version of a "good game" because they are in essence driving the desires, goals, etc. of a particular character in said story... thus why most heavily narrative games have a balancer of some sort or the other. The thing is sooner or later, with that many people, some narrative drives are eventually going to come into conflict with each other and, unlike most games meant to be played in a shared narrative space, D&D has no determiner for whose narrative should supercede every one else's.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Is it OK to explore the parameters of this a bit?
> 
> First, I assume that when you make your PC you make some decisions about your PC's origin and backstory that involve exercising narrative control over the setting (because your PC presumably didn't choose the circumstances and content of his/her birth and biography).




For D&D, I rarely create much backstory as I'm more interested in the play going forward.  I'll make a few decisions about my background as necessary to appease the DM and other players.  I'll include as few elements from the past as I am not particulary interested in where the character came from, but where it's going.  For me, character history is what the player can point to since the PC was introoduced to the campaign.  Even when I do provide a background, I present a draft to the DM for his approval/input and treat the task as a delegation rather than authority.

Note that I am also strongly against the DM arbitrarily providing said background after-the-fact once play begins -- primarily because most DMs try to assign emotional relationships and in-character feelings as part of the background and those are mine to control as a player.  If the DM  presents and estranged brother and tells me the reason for estrangement without telling me how my charactrer felt/feels towards said individual, I'm more OK with it.



> Second, suppose your PC backstory says nothing about siblings or other relatives. Would you ever ask the GM to introduce such an NPC (or even suggest that, for example, you might have a relative in your home village)? Or would you leave all this in the hands of the GM?




I'm a big fan for random tables for this stuff since as you've pointed out, the character had limited or no control over the situation.  Usually, for D&D I won't bother with siblings and generally expect they won't make an appearance.  The party is the surrogate family for the character.  In D&D, I won't request previous relationships.  If I am traveling to my home as previously determined, I'll ask what my character knows and who my character knows in town and what my character thinks they think of him.



> A third thing I'm interested in relates to a current element of my own game. The PCs in my game recently fought a group of pirate thugs, and one of the thugs - their leader - escaped. One of the PCs, who is reestablishing a temple that is located on the same island in the town as the docks and the pirates, wants to recruit the pirates as guards, tarrif collectors and tithe collectors for his temple. I know this because the player of that PC emailed me explaining what he wanted to do.
> 
> Now, I hadn't really given much thought to the personality of this pirate leader beyond what came out in the combat that took place. But the player's plans oblige me to ask myself, "Is this pirate leader amenable to becoming chief guard and tax collector for a temple instead?" And given that one of my players wants this to happen, and given that it will not make any significant difference to the pointy end of play, but will be primarily a background thing, I'm strongly inclined to answer "Yes".
> 
> ...




Yep, wouldn't like that.  If I as ask for such a thing, I'm hoping the DM has assigned/will assign a personality and then determine if my overtures will be successful.  I do not want something to happen just because I want it to happen, but because those results flow out of the situation.


----------



## chaochou (Nov 5, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Now if I as DM have already decided that the villain has taken the shortest route... then why should a PC who is looking for a shorter route succeed?




If you, as a DM, have taken that decision and are intent on retaining the authority to make that decision, that's a playstyle choice. As far as I can tell, this thread is about exploring alternatives to that playstyle choice.



Imaro said:


> I would assume it is important to the narrative thus why should it suddenly change?




The question in the thread, though, is whose narrative is it at any given point? 



Imaro said:


> My other question is what is the limit? I mean does the DM try his hardest to accomodate each and every idea that someone comes up with to change the narrative as long as it isn't contradicting an established fact? Does the DM only get narrative control when the PC's don't want it? What if two PC's want the narrative to go in a different direction...who wins out?




It tends not to work like that. Groups tend to move from a dictatorship to a democracy. Stuff gets talked about, ideas get thrown into the mix. Some happen, some don't. Stuff gets resolved, between friends, concessions get made, deals get done, like the way it does if two people want to see a different movie.



Imaro said:


> See my problems isn't in the giving of narrative control to players, however in a game where there is no structure set up to account for it (in other words, something to make it a limited resource) it becomes what I would call the "uber power".




Really? Is this from experience? If so, our experiences differ massively. In my experience, as I said in a previous post, players don't do this.

I don't think balance in games like FATE come from 'compels' or limits to narrative power in the way you seem to describe. For example, in FATE, if I want to be a jerk I can write really dull aspects like 'I am aweseme at everything' and 'I win'. FATE requires players to write nuanced aspects with both positive and negative connotations, but nothing in FATE forces you to. But if you don't you short-change yourself of all the fun. FATE players know this.

In my experience, players who want narrative control also understand how to use it to make the game more fun. They don't use it for a lame instant counterspell for the evil curse, they use it to say the curse can be broken by the mystical hermit on Dragon Peak who was rumoured to have died 200 years ago.

Clearly if you've already decided 'how the narrative goes' then this is a problem. But this isn't about 'good' or 'bad' or 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It's to say it need not be a problem, if it's how you aim to play.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 5, 2011)

chaochou said:


> If you, as a DM, have taken that decision and are intent on retaining the authority to make that decision, that's a playstyle choice. As far as I can tell, this thread is about exploring alternatives to that playstyle choice.




No, it's not. It's about discussing whether DM's prefer, don't prefer or fall somewhere in-between giving PC's narrative contol or not... and their reasons for that preference. I think you've missed the bigger picture of the thread.





chaochou said:


> The question in the thread, though, is whose narrative is it at any given point?




I think it's more correct to say this is one of the questions raised in the thread and is exactly my point... why should the PC's be able to overide anything I as a DM have decided beforehand... not stuff I haven't decided but things I have set down before that the PC's wouldn't know?

OaN: What guarantees that their idea willl create more fun than my own? 





chaochou said:


> It tends not to work like that. Groups tend to move from a dictatorship to a democracy. Stuff gets talked about, ideas get thrown into the mix. Some happen, some don't. Stuff gets resolved, between friends, concessions get made, deals get done, like the way it does if two people want to see a different movie.




Yes, because friends never argue and friends don't ever fall out. If the world was a perfect place you might have a point... but then I'd ask with all this ability to work stuff out and resolve it... why are there any rules disputes... why do classes have to be balanced? Why do we need rules for combat? All this stuff could just be mutually agreed upon and resolved by everyone without objective rules to guide it?




chaochou said:


> Really? Is this from experience? If so, our experiences differ massively. In my experience, as I said in a previous post, players don't do this.
> 
> I don't think balance in games like FATE come from 'compels' or limits to narrative power in the way you seem to describe. For example, in FATE, if I want to be a jerk I can write really dull aspects like 'I am aweseme at everything' and 'I win'. FATE requires players to write nuanced aspects with both positive and negative connotations, but nothing in FATE forces you to. But if you don't you short-change yourself of all the fun. FATE players know this.




You also short-change yourself in the ability to acquire fate points and thus the ability to exert narrative control. Why did you gloss over what the actual rules do?  And really, you're really trying to speak for all "FATE players"??



chaochou said:


> In my experience, players who want narrative control also understand how to use it to make the game more fun. They don't use it for a lame instant counterspell for the evil curse, they use it to say the curse can be broken by the mystical hermit on Dragon Peak who was rumoured to have died 200 years ago.




I'm sorry but your experiences aren't everyone's... and again I ask with players like these in every game why did groups have issues with the casters stepping on people's toes in D&D 3.5... they should have been able to recognize that the groups fun was the most important thing... not their own, right?



chaochou said:


> Clearly if you've already decided 'how the narrative goes' then this is a problem. But this isn't about 'good' or 'bad' or 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It's to say it need not be a problem, if it's how you aim to play.




I think everyone is in agreement with it being a playstyle choice... and as I said earlier people are here to discuss the for's, the against's the why's and the how's of the different styles. I stated earlier that I prefer narrative control in games that have mechanics built to accomodate it (as did some others in the thread). I think my questions touch on fundamental issues that can arise when their are no mechanics to handle it and beyond_ "have great and accomodating players who will sacrifice their own gratification for that of everyone at the game..." _was looking for answers to those questions that arise in games without mechanics for it from the people who tend to do it.


----------



## chaochou (Nov 5, 2011)

Imaro said:


> No, it's not. It's about discussing whether DM's prefer, don't prefer or fall somewhere in-between giving PC's narrative contol or not... and their reasons for that preference. I think you've missed the bigger picture of the thread.




I don't think you're in a position to say what, if any, picture I've missed.



Imaro said:


> I think it's more correct to say this is one of the questions raised in the thread and is exactly my point... why should the PC's be able to overide anything I as a DM have decided beforehand... not stuff I haven't decided but things I have set down before that the PC's wouldn't know?




And if the question is 'why?' it must also be 'why not?'



Imaro said:


> Why are there any rules disputes... why do classes have to be balanced? Why do we need rules for combat? All this stuff could just be mutually agreed upon and resolved by everyone without objective rules to guide it?




Why? We don't need rules for combat. This stuff can all be done without written rules. Arguments arise, they get resolved. It's no reason, of itself, not to experiment with giving players more control.



Imaro said:


> You also short-change yourself in the ability to acquire fate points and thus the ability to exert narrative control. Why did you gloss over what the actual rules do?  And really, you're really trying to speak for all "FATE players"??




 You wrote that compels act as limiters on player narrative power. I don't agree. Compels are a mechanic which allow the GM to give out more narrative power.

When I offer a player a FP for a compel, I'm offering a deal. Take this shiny FP for later to go to the spooky house now. The player can take the deal or reject it. If I take out the compel rules, I don't get the option to give out Fate.

So compels are not a limiter in the way you describe. On the contrary, they remove the limit. They mean you can have more Fate in a session than your refresh, should you want it.



Imaro said:


> I'm sorry but your experiences aren't everyone's...




No, they're not. But they are my experiences. You've written about how 'most players will always seek to get their way and if given the chance will always make it so'. How they will use narrative rights to short-cut challenge.

(As an aside, I notice you pull me up on speaking to 'FATE players' and yet are comfortable stating what 'most players will always' do.)

So, is this from experience? What were the circumstances? It might be an interesting route for the thread to discuss why this happens. I have some ideas, but I'm done writing for now.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 5, 2011)

chaochou said:


> I don't think you're in a position to say what, if any, picture I've missed.




I'm in no better or worse position than you were... when you decided to tell me (incorrectly I might add) what the thread was about in your earlier post.





chaochou said:


> And if the question is 'why?' it must also be 'why not?'



Uhm... ok and if someone poses that question to me I will answer it... just as others have in this thread.





chaochou said:


> Why? We don't need rules for combat. This stuff can all be done without written rules. Arguments arise, they get resolved. It's no reason, of itself, not to experiment with giving players more control.




In and of itself it is very much a reason, for some, not to want to deal with giving players narrative control. You see you haven't addressed the point except to again hand wave it away in some... "it'll all work out..." vaguery.

The fact of that matter is that it doesn't always work out. There are threads on other boards as well as posts in this thread about shared narrative play not working out for some groups... now whether that is because they don't enjoy the playstyle, didn't have a rules structure in place to deal with it or it just didn't work itself out... claiming it'll all work itself out in the end is proven false by the problems people have posted and listed in this thread and others. 




chaochou said:


> You wrote that compels act as limiters on player narrative power. I don't agree. Compels are a mechanic which allow the GM to give out more narrative power.




It seems more like you are playing semantic games than anything else here. Compels determine how many FP's one gets... thus they are a limiter on one's narrative control (i.e. Fate Points) in the game... compels can either increase or not increase one's FP's (thus setting a liimit). Good compels will allow one more opportunities to gain FP's and thus have the ability to exert more narrative control. Bad compels do the opposite which is exactly what I said earlier. So it's not fun a person with bad compels is screwing themselves out of (though that may be a seocndary effect), it is narrative control and effectiveness... again like I said earlier. 

For someone who doesn't want narrative control... having bad compels would not in any wya diminish their fun, and might actually enhance it as they have no reason to end up in bad situations except as chance ordains it.



chaochou said:


> When I offer a player a FP for a compel, I'm offering a deal. Take this shiny FP for later to go to the spooky house now. The player can take the deal or reject it. If I take out the compel rules, I don't get the option to give out Fate.
> 
> 
> So compels are not a limiter in the way you describe. On the contrary, they remove the limit. They mean you can have more Fate in a session than your refresh, should you want it.




So compels determine a players upper limit of narrative control opportunities(FP's). You're agreeing with everythig I said but trying to word it differently so that it appears different when it isn't.





chaochou said:


> No, they're not. But they are my experiences. You've written about how 'most players will always seek to get their way and if given the chance will always make it so'. How they will use narrative rights to short-cut challenge.
> 
> (As an aside, I notice you pull me up on speaking to 'FATE players' and yet are comfortable stating what 'most players will always' do.)
> 
> So, is this from experience? What were the circumstances? It might be an interesting route for the thread to discuss why this happens. I have some ideas, but I'm done writing for now.




You're right... I should have said "some players" or "IMO, most players". As to taking a specific example, let's keep it generic and look at the OP's example...

The simple example given speaks to my point. The PC didn't try to narratively change the situation to make it harder for himself... or even really more interesting... he made it easier on himself. Where there was no shortcut... now there is, how is this not advocating for his or her goals as opposed to what would make a more intersting story or even more challenging gameplay, like you claim players are apt to do?

See compels balance this out... they make it so that in order to make things narratively easy for yourself... as *some* players are inclined to do with this type of power... you also must place yourself in those dangerous, interesting and more challenging situations. Without that balancer some players will always create a shortcut to the answer.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Is it OK to explore the parameters of this a bit?



Let me can take a crack at this, too, if you don't mind.



> First, I assume that when you make your PC you make some decisions about your PC's origin and backstory that involve exercising narrative control over the setting (because your PC presumably didn't choose the circumstances and content of his/her birth and biography).



Yes, of course, but this, to me, if similar to character generation, when you choose aspects about your character mechanically, as well. These things are chosen not from a character standpoint. There's no point when "exploring things in-game" is a real option, so it doesn't trump player narrative control (which is more like player influence when I run games).



> Second, suppose your PC backstory says nothing about siblings or other relatives. Would you ever ask the GM to introduce such an NPC (or even suggest that, for example, you might have a relative in your home village)? Or would you leave all this in the hands of the GM?



If it's not covered, it's all up to me as the GM. A player can say, "I had this in mind," but if it's not written down, they know that it gets cleared through me, and that I have complete veto power. I'm willing to work with players, and if they said, "I assume I have family in my hometown" I have no real reason to deny that to them, most of the time. It's kind of an implied part of chargen, in my mind.



> A third thing I'm interested in relates to a current element of my own game. The PCs in my game recently fought a group of pirate thugs, and one of the thugs - their leader - escaped. One of the PCs, who is reestablishing a temple that is located on the same island in the town as the docks and the pirates, wants to recruit the pirates as guards, tarrif collectors and tithe collectors for his temple. I know this because the player of that PC emailed me explaining what he wanted to do.
> 
> Now, I hadn't really given much thought to the personality of this pirate leader beyond what came out in the combat that took place. But the player's plans oblige me to ask myself, "Is this pirate leader amenable to becoming chief guard and tax collector for a temple instead?" And given that one of my players wants this to happen, and given that it will not make any significant difference to the pointy end of play, but will be primarily a background thing, I'm strongly inclined to answer "Yes".
> 
> ...



Like we've discussed before at some length (maybe that's why you didn't ask me this!), I would make a judgment call on what I think the pirate would do. What got him into this? What are his motivations? What kind of man is he? Then, I'd decide on how he'd react. If it's something he'd consider, then he'd be willing to negotiate. If it's something he'd love to do, he'd accept. It just depends.

Just my views on it. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Nov 6, 2011)

It's interesting how different people approach the game in different ways.



JamesonCourage said:


> this, to me, if similar to character generation, when you choose aspects about your character mechanically, as well. These things are chosen not from a character standpoint. There's no point when "exploring things in-game" is a real option, so it doesn't trump player narrative control



There are some approaches to PC gen which are much closer to in-character exploration: classic Traveller, at least some versions of Runequest and Stormbringer, and even, in a limited way, 3d6 rolled in order.

This is why I see classic Traveller, and even moreso Runequest, as the ultimate simulationist games.



JamesonCourage said:


> I would make a judgment call on what I think the pirate would do. What got him into this? What are his motivations? What kind of man is he? Then, I'd decide on how he'd react. If it's something he'd consider, then he'd be willing to negotiate. If it's something he'd love to do, he'd accept. It just depends.





Bedrockgames said:


> As a player I wouldn't want you to have the npc be ammenable to the suggestion simply because I expressed interest in it. I'd much rather you do so based on the NPC's personality, motives and history. If you hadn't given thought to those things, then I'd at least prefer you decide based on the liklihood of such a character type being amenable.



I know basically nothing about this NPC. He entered my session planning as combat stats adopted from (I think) the 4e MM2 human knife fighter. In the course of the combat, he ended up being betrayed by the cleric who had hired him (I can't remember the details, but I do know he took a swipe at the cleric with his dagger), before escaping across the rooves of the town (with good Acro and Athletics).

In the circumstances, it's essentially arbitrary, relative to the already-established fiction (and even the "secretly established fiction" in my GM's notes), what this NPC would do. In those circumstances, I'm always going to incline towards the player's plan. (Whether I run it as some sort of skill challenge, when the recruitment attempt is eventually made, will depend on the context and circumstances at the time.)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> It's interesting how different people approach the game in different ways.



That it is.



> There are some approaches to PC gen which are much closer to in-character exploration: classic Traveller, at least some versions of Runequest and Stormbringer, and even, in a limited way, 3d6 rolled in order.
> 
> This is why I see classic Traveller, and even moreso Runequest, as the ultimate simulationist games.



For some games, sure. That's true. I thought we were speaking within the context of 4e, or D&D in general. But, if we're speaking more broadly, that's a valid point.



> I know basically nothing about this NPC. He entered my session planning as combat stats adopted from (I think) the 4e MM2 human knife fighter. In the course of the combat, he ended up being betrayed by the cleric who had hired him (I can't remember the details, but I do know he took a swipe at the cleric with his dagger), before escaping across the rooves of the town (with good Acro and Athletics).
> 
> In the circumstances, it's essentially arbitrary, relative to the already-established fiction (and even the "secretly established fiction" in my GM's notes), what this NPC would do. In those circumstances, I'm always going to incline towards the player's plan. (Whether I run it as some sort of skill challenge, when the recruitment attempt is eventually made, will depend on the context and circumstances at the time.)



Yep, it's definitely going to be arbitrary. I don't know what it is, but whenever I introduce an NPC, I have a feel for what they are. I can have a group of 10 mercenaries, and I'll have a feel for the group (hardened killers, will do anything for the right price, good-natured battle buddies, etc.), the leader (upbeat guy, sociopath, weight-of-the-world-on-my-shoulders type, etc.), and oftentimes the righthand man (whether he's officially in the position or not). Then, if the group is focused on even further, I instantly and reactively break them down even further. Guy A is a real dick, while Guy B is somewhat apologetic for Guy A, and Guy C likes to tease people or is a prankster. It's just instantaneous as of this point. Maybe that's why I play this way; it'd be hard not to (for me). As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Nov 6, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Established with who? In a game that is run in a more traditional manner, things can certainly be established in the world that the PC's do not know about yet.
> 
> /snip




In my opinion, no there isn't.  If it hasn't come up in play yet, then it doesn't exist anywhere other than maybe the DM's notes.  And the DM's notes are subject to change at any point in time.  I know that my notes get changed all the time (but never to the point of contracting established facts) as the whim hits me.

So, in any game, traditional or not, unless it's been established in play, it doesn't exist.  At least, not IMO.  



> Everyone's defintion of a "good game" is not the same. I think in general it is harder for many players (though by no means all) to see an all-encompassing version of a "good game" because they are in essence driving the desires, goals, etc. of a particular character in said story... thus why most heavily narrative games have a balancer of some sort or the other. The thing is sooner or later, with that many people, some narrative drives are eventually going to come into conflict with each other and, unlike most games meant to be played in a shared narrative space, D&D has no determiner for whose narrative should supercede every one else's.




Sure it does.  It has a DM and Rule 0.  The DM most certainly can resolve conflicts between two players.  As far as it being "harder for many players", that may be true.  Again, I'm only talking about my experience, and IME, most of my players have also been DM/GM's.  Sometimes we co-DM the same campaign.  

So, yes, I implicitly trust that my players know what a good game looks like.

I suppose if  I had a table full of newbies, it might be different.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In my opinion, no there isn't. If it hasn't come up in play yet, then it doesn't exist anywhere other than maybe the DM's notes. And the DM's notes are subject to change at any point in time. I know that my notes get changed all the time (but never to the point of contracting established facts) as the whim hits me.
> 
> So, in any game, traditional or not, unless it's been established in play, it doesn't exist. At least, not IMO.




That's definitely an interesting, though IMO also limited, stance to have on the subject. I'm curious do you ever do sandbox play? I ask this because it is a whole playstyle where much, if not all of the campaign world is assumed to be created beforehand for the players to explore...How do the sentiments above factor into a game that is centered around exploration? Do your feelings change in such a game as to what is or isn't established... or is it still only in play?



Hussar said:


> Sure it does. It has a DM and Rule 0. The DM most certainly can resolve conflicts between two players. As far as it being "harder for many players", that may be true. Again, I'm only talking about my experience, and IME, most of my players have also been DM/GM's. Sometimes we co-DM the same campaign.
> 
> So, yes, I implicitly trust that my players know what a good game looks like.
> 
> I suppose if I had a table full of newbies, it might be different.




So we are back to the DM deciding whose narrative is the "coolest" and thus should "win"... In other words "Mother May I" and all the baggage that style brings with it. Personally I'd rather use a game with actual mechanics to share narrative control, and avoid all that...YMMV of course.  I do think that if it was this simple for most then games with specific narrative sharing mechanics wouldn't be as prolific as they are in the gaming community.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 6, 2011)

Mort said:


> One of the reponses I received was the following:
> 
> ...
> 
> This surprised me a bit as I've not yet had a negative response to giving some narrative control to the players (in fact I would have to describe response as overwhelmingly positive).



I find there is a big difference in what constitutes "narrative control".

Its no secret that I find 4E to presume mutual narrative control in a manner that takes greatly away from the quality of the experience.

But for this specific example I agree completely with the OP.

The way I put it in the other thread was, "characters should only be able to do things that characters in a novel could do."
Well in novels or TV shows the resourceful/knowledgeable archetype knowing a short cut is absolutely not just reasonable, but expected.  

Now, if was established that the city in question had a Berlin Wall type feature and the short cut needed to cross over that feature, then, at a minimum, the level of skill (DC or however else you want to look at it) would go way up.  And in a case like that an answer of "NO" is not only reasonable, it is highly preferable.  But I've added that feature to this example.  In the example as given, the shortcut makes absolute sense to me.  I embrace that idea.

The other thread was specifically about surges.  I agree that this is a different topic.  But the point being made was that narrative control which results in wounds vanishing or never being received in the first place IS a bad thing.  ("for my style of gaming")  

I present that NOT with the intent of reviving surges here, but to present a counter-offer and important context to the origins of this debate.

(A) Short cut across the city is player narrative control.  (B) Serious wounds vanishing from a fighter is player narrative control.  (C) And angry barbarian suddenly throwing fireballs from his eyes is player narrative control.  

There seems to be a presumption that you either accept or reject the idea of player narrative control.  I reject that as a false dichotomy.  

I suspect that most players agree that (A) is good and (C) is bad.  And (B) seems to be in the zone where there are folks on both sides.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, in any game, traditional or not, unless it's been established in play, it doesn't exist.  At least, not IMO.



I strongly disagree with that as a truism.

Frankly, players NOT knowing why some things played out the way they did until the big reveals LATER is one huge avenue for fun.

That isn't to say that the opposite is true.  I absolutely wouldn't say never change DM notes.  A good DM should take information into account and make good choices at the moment.  

But overturning truth that the players just don't happen to know yet should take compelling justification and the idea that having it not previously established makes it automatically not in existence is WAY out of bounds to me.

The first thing the players (and characters) must know is that they don't know everything.  And maybe that's my out, but that IS previously established.


----------



## Mort (Nov 6, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I find there is a big difference in what constitutes "narrative control".
> 
> Its no secret that I find 4E to presume mutual narrative control in a manner that takes greatly away from the quality of the experience.




The designers of 4e went in a directon that really rubs some people the wrong way, I don't think there's even a question that that's true.

For example: there are "non-magic" powers in 4e that allow the player to look at a monster and say "I slide it 3 squares in _that_ direction" - this is something quite a few people just really dislike in their games.




BryonD said:


> The other thread was specifically about surges.  I agree that this is a different topic.  But the point being made was that narrative control which results in wounds vanishing or never being received in the first place IS a bad thing.  ("for my style of gaming")
> 
> I present that NOT with the intent of reviving surges here, but to present a counter-offer and important context to the origins of this debate. .




I'm not going to rehash my utter disagreement with this presentation of healing surges. I will just say that I wish you would not bring that discussion into this thread, even with the supposed qualifier in the last sentence - one of the whole points of a new thread was so people talk about something other than healing surges (I have no wish to yank this thread in that direction)





BryonD said:


> (A) Short cut across the city is player narrative control.  (B) Serious wounds vanishing from a fighter is player narrative control.  (C) And angry barbarian suddenly throwing fireballs from his eyes is player narrative control.
> 
> There seems to be a presumption that you either accept or reject the idea of player narrative control.  I reject that as a false dichotomy.
> 
> I suspect that most players agree that (A) is good and (C) is bad.  And (B) seems to be in the zone where there are folks on both sides.




Actually per this thread, some people *really* dislike (A) or at the very least are very uncomfortable with it.

Reading through the thread opinions run a wide spectrum. Some like "some" player narrative control, some like narrative control only in the context of games specifically designed for it, and some hate even the hint of player narrative control.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 6, 2011)

Mort said:


> I'm not going to rehash my utter disagreement with this presentation of healing surges. I will just say that I wish you would not bring that discussion into this thread, even with the supposed qualifier in the last sentence - one of the whole points of a new thread was so people talk about something other than healing surges (I have no wish to yank this thread in that direction)



Agreed.  And I won't rehash that not a single person in the thread where this conversation appropriately belongs was able to present an example that doesn't match this presentation of surges.  




> Actually per this thread, some people *really* dislike (A) or at the very least are very uncomfortable with it.
> 
> Reading through the thread opinions run a wide spectrum. Some like "some" player narrative control, some like narrative control only in the context of games specifically designed for it, and some hate even the hint of player narrative control.



I agree.  But suspect some people would like the eyeball fireballs as well.  I don't think this thread shows that the proportions of opinions, just the range.


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2011)

Imaro said:


> So when you say "established" you really mean "established with/by the players". Now if I as DM have already decided that the villain has taken the shortest route... then why should a PC who is looking for a shorter route succeed? That particular avenue is not viable at this point (I don't see how this is any different than deciding a NPC doesn't respond well to intimidation??)... If I as DM have taken the time to establish this in my notes, on a map or whatever... I would assume it is important to the narrative thus why should it suddenly change? Especially if there are other avenues in which to overcome this particular challenge. Why is a story where they find a shorter route... better than a mad dash through a crowded street using footwork (athletics and/or acrobatics), quick wits and keen eyes(insight and/or perception), while not alerting unddue attention (stealth and/or streetwise) to slowly gain on the villain?





Because in a true simulation, the GM cannot have DECIDED that the NPC took the optimal route.  He has to simulate the decision making process.  Which means the NPC's knowledge of the city is approximated by skill checks, which he then must roll.  For a non-simple, non-obvious route, unless the NPC prepared and planned this route, it would be utter BS that the NPC just happened to take the perfect route.

If the NPC was supposed to respond poorly to Intimidation, then he must have the skills and feats to represent that and must actually succeed in their usage when confronted with Intimidation.

That's the point of simulation, that the SYSTEM reflects the behavior.  Rather than GM fiat, which i would take to mean a narrativist style.

This is why I'm still a bit puzzled by anybody thinking the PC can't ask for a shortcut.  If the player has a valid argument that a skill check is in order to validate whether the NPC or PC has the best route, then run the check, and come up with some explanation that supports the result.  Maybe it's a shortcut that you hadn't planned on, maybe its knowledge of traffic patterns and construction work going on in the city.   That's the GMs job, no different than explaining why I missed with my sword in the last attack.


Side question, related to hussar's huffy DM syndrome:
a child and parent were in line at Subway today.  The kid asked if they could have a cookie.  Over and over and over and over again.  It was annoying.
Do you buy the kid a cookie?

the kid is a Player, the parent is the GM.  Are we facing a hesitancy by the GM to allow for players to ask for things?

Personally, I grew up that you don't ask for things, and you sure as hell don't keep pestering.  The result would be any possible Yes turning to an absolute No (and prolly a spanking when you got home).

I've seen this pattern in others who are in authority.  It's an obstinancy that comes up when subordinates try to get their way.  Not invented Here syndrome is probably related (the rejection of any idea or solution that comes from external rather than found/developed within the group).


----------



## Imaro (Nov 6, 2011)

Janx said:


> Because in a true simulation, the GM cannot have DECIDED that the NPC took the optimal route. He has to simulate the decision making process. Which means the NPC's knowledge of the city is approximated by skill checks, which he then must roll. For a non-simple, non-obvious route, unless the NPC prepared and planned this route, it would be utter BS that the NPC just happened to take the perfect route.
> 
> If the NPC was supposed to respond poorly to Intimidation, then he must have the skills and feats to represent that and must actually succeed in their usage when confronted with Intimidation.
> 
> That's the point of simulation, that the SYSTEM reflects the behavior. Rather than GM fiat, which i would take to mean a narrativist style.




I think it would be entirely possible for the villain to have mapped out his escape route... it's also possible that he does in fact know the shortest route to a point in the city. You're making assumptions that were not presented... we have no way of knowing the why of his knowing the shortest route... only that it had been important enough for the GM top note it in the particular encounter.

As to the more general thrust of your post above...who is arguing exact simulation vs. narrative. I'm puzzled as to how to respond to this as I don't believe I've been arguing for sim vs. narrative in the discussion. 



Janx said:


> This is why I'm still a bit puzzled by anybody thinking the PC can't ask for a shortcut. If the player has a valid argument that a skill check is in order to validate whether the NPC or PC has the best route, then run the check, and come up with some explanation that supports the result. Maybe it's a shortcut that you hadn't planned on, maybe its knowledge of traffic patterns and construction work going on in the city. That's the GMs job, no different than explaining why I missed with my sword in the last attack.




Some things just are... there's no conflict, one thing is and one thing isn't... I certainly have things in my notes that aren't going to change because a player suggested changing it.   

On another note, you  present a qualifier... "If the player has a valid argument that a skill check is in order...".  Yet your argument seems to pre-suppose this is the case.  Why is that?  also who deciedes if it's "valid"?  If it's the DM then you're saying he has the right to say that it isn't valid and that the NPC really does take the shortest route.  The thing I don't understand is why doing this auto-magically makes someone's game worse to some people?




Janx said:


> Side question, related to hussar's huffy DM syndrome:
> a child and parent were in line at Subway today. The kid asked if they could have a cookie. Over and over and over and over again. It was annoying.
> Do you buy the kid a cookie?
> 
> ...





How about, IMO, it's just a preference of playstyle on both sides of the table, and we've seen players and DM's argue for and against it... so I honestly don't think your theory applies in any meaningful way to this situation.


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think it would be entirely possible for the villain to have mapped out his escape route... it's also possible that he does in fact know the shortest route to a point in the city. You're making assumptions that were not presented... we have no way of knowing the why of his knowing the shortest route... only that it had been important enough for the GM top note it in the particular encounter.
> 
> As to the more general thrust of your post above...who is arguing exact simulation vs. narrative. I'm puzzled as to how to respond to this as I don't believe I've been arguing for sim vs. narrative in the discussion.
> 
> ...





I'm advising against a playstyle thought process.

The GM technically decides in all cases.  If you want more variance in the solutions the PCs can pursue, the LESS you document, plan and take note, the more open and effectively random the possible solutions.

Thus, of all my NPCs that will EVER run away from the PCs, only a small % of them should have the perfectest route across a complex city map.  Mostly reserved for the super-genius PCs (so as to simulate an NPC smarter than me or the players).  Everybody else, "tries" to take the best route and it is assumed they do, until challenged by the PCs and they have to prove it.  Just like the PCs would have to prove it if the roles were reversed.

In a way, I am challenging absolutism of the GM's notes.  There's no way his notes actually cover every detail.  Nor, that just because the GM can declare the NPC does something successfully, does it mean that is actually fair resolution.  Up until it makes player contact, it certainly expedites things.  

But once it is directly opposed, maybe the GM does NOT have that right.

Change the question to "Is there an Apple cart along the street?"  The player might want to throw an apple at the NPC or steal one.  Or simply buy one so he can eat it while staring at the direction the NPC went.

In this case, there's no contest.  The player has a valid question that the cart might exist.  But there's no real debate on whether the AppleMan could have known to park his cart right there or not by GM fiat or player whim.  It's there or it isn't and up until the PC asked, it wasn't even important.

In the case of the chase, as a player, at the moment I'm pursuing him, if I have to make checks to navigate the city efficiently, so should the NPC.  The GM by-passing that better have a good reason.

JC said he prefers a more simulationist than narrativist.  He's certain open to "creating content" when players ask about things not on the notes.

I would propose that certain other things should NOT be in the notes.  thus, the notes should not say:
NPC takes the optimal path from point A to point B while the PCs pursue him. The PCs can only stop him if they out-run him or magic.

they could say:
NPC takes the best path he knows from point A to point B.  If the PCs pursue him, make such-and-such checks as needed.

For me, a lot of times, I'm hesitant to put that much.  I may detail NPCs and places, but I may avoid putting them in one specific spot (unless they are mostly stationary).  thus, I will put NPCs in-game, where it makes sense.  As such, I don't know or plan on NPC being at point A, for me to know when I need him to run to point B (because he may never have need to run, running is the "new" idea that occurs to the NPC).

I don't know what this concept should be called.  But using the system to determine actual events seems a simulationist thing to do.  using notes to declare absolute events seems what a narrator would do (hence being narativist).  Note, I used "events" and not "facts".

the apple cart is a fact. It's either on 5th street or on this street.
the villain carrying a rod of evil-stuff is a fact.

The players may not like it, but generally, the GM does get to freely determine where stuff is (the apple cart is at 6th street today, and the villain owns a Rod of Evil-Stuf and carries it on his person)

the villain racing acros town is an event.  It is someting that he intends to do well, but may be contested by the players and the rules.

My reasoning on handling events has plenty of holes.  I don't expect the GM to roll every attack and skill check that happens off-camera from the PCs.  So when the villain murders the mayor, sure, that's an event, and the PCs sure didn't want it to happen.  But they weren't around in anyway that would make me have to prove how it went down because they might interfere.

I think timing would be a cue as to when this principle might apply.  If the PCs are sleeping, and the villain goes to the mayor for a secret meeting, and then kills the mayor.  There's nothing the PCs could do to interject into round 3 when the mayor actually dies.  They weren't even around to be part of initiative.  So they couldn't be racing to th spot to get there by round 2 to change the outcome.  Therefore, there's no need to run the murder as a combat.

But in the race from A to B (presumably hot on the tail of the NPC), there's a lot of factors at stake.  are both parties using the "city" map that does not show alleys as known pathways?  Are both parties abstracting the city to a couple die rolls?  

it certainly wouldn't be fair if the GM said the NPC was using alleys and backways that weren't on the map to run the perfect route, but the PCs have to roll for it, or worse, stick to the map, which doesn't show those.  especially with a PC who "knows" the city.

Now we've kind of looped in topic to the beginning of the thread.

I would propose for GMs:
allow for both NPC and PC to use the same mechanisms to determine sucess
be cautious of over-detailing events
consider that some GM info is possibilities rather than fact, thus opening options for alternate player solutions.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think it would be entirely possible for the villain to have mapped out his escape route... it's also possible that he does in fact know the shortest route to a point in the city.



Exactly. And that's why it's _also_ possible that he just _thinks_ he knows the shortest route!


Imaro said:


> You're making assumptions that were not presented... we have no way of knowing the why of his knowing the shortest route... only that it had been important enough for the GM top note it in the particular encounter.



Who is this 'we'?
It sounds like you're arguing for a kind of railroading:
The GM decides that there is no way to prevent the villain from escaping, because that's the required result of the encounter. Otherwise the next encounter, which relies on that result won't work, thus wrecking the entire adventure.

If the GM wants to allow for the players' actions to change the predetermined result, he'll have set a DC (or decide on one on the fly) for the required actions _or_ allow an ingenious approach to work automatically.

In every case it's the GMs prerogative to make a decision to follow his original plan or let the players (temporarily) derail the adventure. The players usually don't even know if there ever _was_ a plan.

Imho, giving the players narrative control is _usually_ a good thing. But sometimes it's better for a DM to stick to the original plan.

Naturally, it also depends on the DM: Myself, I like to prepare encounters in a way that they're easy to modify, replace or omit and reuse later. So, I typically got nothing to lose by following the players' ideas.
There are limits of course: If the players suddenly decide to do something else entirely I might end up having prepared nothing I can quickly adapt to the changed circumstances. At that point all I can do is talk to them OOC and ask for a vote to end the session early so I can prepare something or backtrack a bit and postpone their alternative ideas.

If I'd prepare everything in excruciating detail, things would be different. E.g. if we agreed to play a particular Adventure Path, then there's basically only as much freedom as has been written into it.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Exactly. And that's why it's _also_ possible that he just _thinks_ he knows the shortest route!




No, if I as DM have decided that he knows the shortest route... then he does. It becomes a fact present in the scene I have set. Now this doesn't have to be the case and I could decide with a roll... if I felt the NPC wouldn't have taken the time or didn't have the time to scout ahead or isn't familiar enough with the city, or numerous other things. But again, if I have put this in my notes then I have decided it is a relevant fact to the encounter in the same way PC's decide facts about their character before the start of a game and I can't just change them.




Jhaelen said:


> Who is this 'we'?
> It sounds like you're arguing for a kind of railroading:
> The GM decides that there is no way to prevent the villain from escaping, because that's the required result of the encounter. Otherwise the next encounter, which relies on that result won't work, thus wrecking the entire adventure.




Whoah, no one equated the villain knowing the shortest route with him making an auto-escape. Nothing in the fact that the NPC knows and takes the shortest route assures his escape... what it does and does not is set the expectations for what are and aren't viable solutions to capturing him. Finding a shorter route... not valid. Finding a quicker way to traverse the shortest route...perfectly viable. Using magic like an eladrin's teleportation...valid. A rogue using Acrobatics to flip, run up walls and avoid street traffic...again valid.



Jhaelen said:


> If the GM wants to allow for the players' actions to change the predetermined result, he'll have set a DC (or decide on one on the fly) for the required actions _or_ allow an ingenious approach to work automatically.




Uhm, okay... how is this any less true when the GM sets certain parameters within the encounter? How is it more exciting to make one roll to find a shortcut and beat the villain... as opposed to a high speed, skill charged chase along the road? 



Jhaelen said:


> In every case it's the GMs prerogative to make a decision to follow his original plan or let the players (temporarily) derail the adventure. The players usually don't even know if there ever _was_ a plan.
> 
> Imho, giving the players narrative control is _usually_ a good thing. But sometimes it's better for a DM to stick to the original plan.




Well I at least agree with the sentiment that giving or restricting narrative control with players isn't an objectively good or bad thing.



Jhaelen said:


> Naturally, it also depends on the DM: Myself, I like to prepare encounters in a way that they're easy to modify, replace or omit and reuse later. So, I typically got nothing to lose by following the players' ideas.
> There are limits of course: If the players suddenly decide to do something else entirely I might end up having prepared nothing I can quickly adapt to the changed circumstances. At that point all I can do is talk to them OOC and ask for a vote to end the session early so I can prepare something or backtrack a bit and postpone their alternative ideas.




No one is arguing that you remove the ability of players to affect the world in a narrative way (at least I'm not)... what I am arguing is that...

1. It is not objectively better (storywise or gamewise) to give PC's narrative control... iot's a playstyle and like all playstyl;es has it's advantages and drawbacks.

2. In the original situation I don't see how auto-magically creating an "I win" shortcut creates a better experience for everyone at the table (which is what most people are arguing narrartive control in the player's hands should do.). In fact it seems this is being used just to make the situation easier on the players.



Jhaelen said:


> If I'd prepare everything in excruciating detail, things would be different. E.g. if we agreed to play a particular Adventure Path, then there's basically only as much freedom as has been written into it.




Eh, again excruciating detail, at least in my mind, has nothing to do with it. However the notes I do make for an encounter whether vague or detailed are there for a reason and unless I feel the game will be improved by a suggestion (which I clearly don't in the case of the OP) I don't see a reason to change these particular things... anything not noted though is up for grabs, such as the apple cart suggested by an earlier poster.


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> No, if I as DM have decided that he knows the shortest route... then he does. It becomes a fact present in the scene I have set. Now this doesn't have to be the case and I could decide with a roll... if I felt the NPC wouldn't have taken the time or didn't have the time to scout ahead or isn't familiar enough with the city, or numerous other things. But again, if I have put this in my notes then I have decided it is a relevant fact to the encounter in the same way PC's decide facts about their character before the start of a game and I can't just change them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





We're diverging from player narrative control a bit, but the topic may bear some fruit.

I'm advising against DM certainty.  Do not absolutely declare the NPC is taking the best route.

Let's say we've got a lower level party (to eliminate teleports and other "really easy" solutions.
The bad guy is going to run from Point A to Point B.  Presumably when they confront him.

Let's say it is 12 blocks away to Point B.  Across a diagonal (thus not a straight path down the street), and thus subject to some consideration on the best path.

1) The most obvious choice is to run directly after the NPC.  This is basically some Run checks.  If you don't truly lose sight of the NPC, you don't even need to know where he's going.

The GM may or may not make a mini-game of dodging and weaving through crowds.  So this could be simple Run checks or more complicated.

2) The PC could grab a horse (if one exists, more narrative control being asked for) and then chase the NPC.  If Horse exists, this could be a very short chase unless NPC does likewise.

3) Other options were to go up and over buildings.  Going up would actually complicate things, as the NPC has to do climb checks, and some kind of check to cross buildings, especially across streets.  Tactically, it might make things slower unless the street path is considerably longer.  Otherwise, this is how a PC's climb and jump skills can contribute to the chase.

4) there could be alleys and shortcuts through buildings.  If the GM's map shows things at the block level, it abstracts this information, and thus the GM would have to generate a lot of details spontaneously, or use die rolls to abstractly handle it (streetwise).  Thus, the player's streetwise skill contributes to the chase.

If you declare the NPC has taken the BEST path, then the only way to beat the NPC to Point A is to outrun him by method 1 or 2.  Methods 3 and 4 are inviable because there is ABSOLUTELY NO SHORTER PATH.

Reducing solution options is what a RR GM would do.  This in turn leads to greater certainty of outcome, which is another goal of an RR GM.

Now, I do see SOME situations where it makes sense that the NPC has a routing advantage.  Dr. Moriarty is going to have planned his route, as he predicted being confronted by Sherlock at Point A.  The Dr. is smarter than me, so I'm going to simulate that by giving him an advantage.  I might measure the exact best route* or more simulationisty, assume he took 20.  Which means he gets the best route his skill + 20 allows for (maybe +2 if he got help from a local guide he later killed).

*Route optimization is a problem I have been paid to solve professionally.  For a computer, you are dependent on the quality of the mapping data.  Sorting through all possible paths is one problem, in the real world, you can compound this by time of day factors and lack of details in the map (like alleys).

So, depending on the map's level of detail, it may NOT be possible for a GM to PROVE his NPC has the best route even by looking at the map.  Discounting for actual events going on the streets at the time of play.  Which might not be accounted for by the DM other than fiat.

To sum up, being abstract allows for more variance in outcomes.  It's also probably less paperwork.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> We're diverging from player narrative control a bit, but the topic may bear some fruit.
> 
> I'm advising against DM certainty. Do not absolutely declare the NPC is taking the best route.




But you haven't provided an objectively good reason fore taking such a blanket stance... that's my problem with your statements, nothing in them shows me why this is a better way.



Janx said:


> Let's say we've got a lower level party (to eliminate teleports and other "really easy" solutions.
> The bad guy is going to run from Point A to Point B. Presumably when they confront him.
> 
> Let's say it is 12 blocks away to Point B. Across a diagonal (thus not a straight path down the street), and thus subject to some consideration on the best path.
> ...




So we've got a situation that could provide enjoyment in the realm of a skill challenge that doesn't require that the villain not know the most direct route. I also think that dependant upon what is actually taking place in the street this can be far from a simple series of "run checks".



Janx said:


> 2) The PC could grab a horse (if one exists, more narrative control being asked for) and then chase the NPC. If Horse exists, this could be a very short chase unless NPC does likewise.




And since I have made no notations about what is or isn't found in the streets and this seems reasonable to me as DM I would definitely allow it... with appropriate checks.



Janx said:


> 3) Other options were to go up and over buildings. Going up would actually complicate things, as the NPC has to do climb checks, and some kind of check to cross buildings, especially across streets. Tactically, it might make things slower unless the street path is considerably longer. Otherwise, this is how a PC's climb and jump skills can contribute to the chase.




This is an option but I don't see what it brings on a gameplay or story level that can't be accomplished with the dash along the shortest route skill challenge (it's still a chase composed of skill checks.), especially if the DM and players are an imaginative lot? There is ample opportunity in that scenario for numerous skills to be used.



Janx said:


> 4) there could be alleys and shortcuts through buildings. If the GM's map shows things at the block level, it abstracts this information, and thus the GM would have to generate a lot of details spontaneously, or use die rolls to abstractly handle it (streetwise). Thus, the player's streetwise skill contributes to the chase.




No, I've already noted what the optimal path is, if anything I would allow a check to see these paths would take longer... but a failure would result in a PC not realizing this and generating a failure for the SC.



Janx said:


> If you declare the NPC has taken the BEST path, then the only way to beat the NPC to Point A is to outrun him by method 1 or 2. Methods 3 and 4 are inviable because there is ABSOLUTELY NO SHORTER PATH.




No it's not, because as I have said numerous times I have defined nothing but what is the shortest route... I have not defined the best way to traverse said route, I have not defined any obstacles (or lack of) upon said route or anything else.



Janx said:


> Reducing solution options is what a RR GM would do. This in turn leads to greater certainty of outcome, which is another goal of an RR GM.




You're entitled to your opinion but your opinion is wrong. The playing field has to be constrained to a certain point... otherwise it is ridiculously open... 

"You're railroading us because the dungeon is underground instead of floating in the air where I could use my fly spell to get us out safely."

...see how silly a broad statement like... a RR DM reduces solution options...can become?



Janx said:


> Now, I do see SOME situations where it makes sense that the NPC has a routing advantage. Dr. Moriarty is going to have planned his route, as he predicted being confronted by Sherlock at Point A. The Dr. is smarter than me, so I'm going to simulate that by giving him an advantage. I might measure the exact best route* or more simulationisty, assume he took 20. Which means he gets the best route his skill + 20 allows for (maybe +2 if he got help from a local guide he later killed).




Sorry you have still failed to show how me deciding that the NPC doesn't know the most optimal route in any way created a better game experience... as well as how I deciding he knows the best route creates a railroad... but hey I'm still open to reason.



Janx said:


> *Route optimization is a problem I have been paid to solve professionally. For a computer, you are dependent on the quality of the mapping data. Sorting through all possible paths is one problem, in the real world, you can compound this by time of day factors and lack of details in the map (like alleys).
> 
> So, depending on the map's level of detail, it may NOT be possible for a GM to PROVE his NPC has the best route even by looking at the map. Discounting for actual events going on the streets at the time of play. Which might not be accounted for by the DM other than fiat.




I'm not really sure what point you are making here... so I'll leave it at that.



Janx said:


> To sum up, being abstract allows for more variance in outcomes. It's also probably less paperwork.




But more variance does not equal... better...especially if that variance includes less fun/interesting/engaging options in it's set. That's what I feel like you are missing... you haven't shown why more is objectively better.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> We're diverging from player narrative control a bit, but the topic may bear some fruit.
> 
> I'm advising against DM certainty.  Do not absolutely declare the NPC is taking the best route.




Excellent advice. I'd XP you for it if I could, but I apparently gave XP to you too recently to do so.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> I'm advising against DM certainty. Do not absolutely declare the NPC is taking the best route.




If we are talking certainty of outcomes then I agree. The shortest route to a point being known is not a certainty of outcome, it is merely a fact that will likely have an effect on the outcome. 

The mistake would be in assuming that, because the villain is following the shortest route, he gets away. 

Not everything in the game world has to be negotiable in order to solve a problem. When confronted by a 50' wall do you figure out how to get over a 50' wall or spend time thinking about how to arrange things so that the wall was really only 20' high?


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But you haven't provided an objectively good reason fore taking such a blanket stance... that's my problem with your statements, nothing in them shows me why this is a better way.
> 
> ...snip...
> But more variance does not equal... better...especially if that variance includes less fun/interesting/engaging options in it's set. That's what I feel like you are missing... you haven't shown why more is objectively better.





failure on my part to explain my point, doesn't invalidate the point itself.

the * point about route optimization is merely to establish credentials that I may know more about the topic of routing than the general population.  It's possible that you too have done similar work.  But if you haven't spent any time working on such algorithms, I ask you to consider that you as a DM may not actually correctly divine the true best path, therefore how could your NPC do so?

Let me try a different, and hopefully shorter tack.  if your NPC takes the best path, then the PC has NO choice but to follow him.  Any mini-games you put along the way, be it dodging carts, jumping buildings, etc does not represent a choice.  The PC is forced to play your mini-games because there are no other viable solutions.

By planning it, you limit it and are more likely to eliminate equally valid and fun alternative solutions.

With what I propose, I don't see any reason you can't make a mini-game out of the shortcut or the building hopping (which is a shortcut).  The difference being:

the Runner PC will just run after the NPC
the street-saavy PC will out-maneuver the PC by way of the backstreet knowledge
the jumpy PC will prefer racing across rooftops to finally jump down on the NPC

When the NPC takes the true shortest path, by definition, no other paths are better.  At best, the PCs can only hope to navigate the one true path faster than the NPC.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> Let me try a different, and hopefully shorter tack. if your NPC takes the best path, then the PC has NO choice but to follow him. Any mini-games you put along the way, be it dodging carts, jumping buildings, etc does not represent a choice. The PC is forced to play your mini-games because there are no other viable solutions.




HOW COW! Talk about predetermination. 

No choice, really?  What about the classic tactic of figuring out where he's going and arrange to be waiting for him? Work smarter not harder!


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> failure on my part to explain my point, doesn't invalidate the point itself.




You haven't failed to explain your point... what you've failed to do is validate it with anything other than your opinion. 



Janx said:


> the * point about route optimization is merely to establish credentials that I may know more about the topic of routing than the general population. It's possible that you too have done similar work. But if you haven't spent any time working on such algorithms, I ask you to consider that you as a DM may not actually correctly divine the true best path, therefore how could your NPC do so?




Unless of course I decide that he does. I'm still not understanding you, are you arguing for some type of in-depth simulation through assigning chance to all available variables within the game world?



Janx said:


> Let me try a different, and hopefully shorter tack. if your NPC takes the best path, then the PC has NO choice but to follow him. Any mini-games you put along the way, be it dodging carts, jumping buildings, etc does not represent a choice. The PC is forced to play your mini-games because there are no other viable solutions.




Wrong, with magic alone the PC has an option to create a shorter path... the PC has the option not to chase him at that moment and try to hunt him down later. The PC's have the option to open fire on him with ranged weapons and try to kill/knock him unconscious if they want. The PC's have the option to pursue... and so on. The only thing the PC's can't do is declare they know a shorter route through the city than the NPC... just as they can't suddenly declare they aren't in a city but in a forest instead... though they may not know the entire layout of the city. 



Janx said:


> By planning it, you limit it and are more likely to eliminate equally valid and fun alternative solutions.




Or I get my players to think creatively and use ingenuity in the actual parameters of the challenge instead of short circuiting it with a narrative "I win with a single check" button. See there's no reason to assume I am not also eliminating just as many un-fun alternative solutions as well... which is something you seem to keep glossing over and not addressing in our converstion.




Janx said:


> With what I propose, I don't see any reason you can't make a mini-game out of the shortcut or the building hopping (which is a shortcut). The difference being:
> 
> the Runner PC will just run after the NPC
> the street-saavy PC will out-maneuver the PC by way of the backstreet knowledge
> ...




shortest does not equal best... think about that for a minute. 

Earlier I gave numerous examples of other actions the PC's could take so your assertion that they have only one choice seems moreso based around your inability to come up with options within the parameters than there really only being one option, this along with the avoidance of addressing the negative side of variance is why I am still not seeing your playstyle as objectively better than another more confinced one. This is of course all with the caveat that extremes are bad either way.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 7, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> HOW COW! Talk about predetermination.
> 
> No choice, really?  What about the classic tactic of figuring out where he's going and arrange to be waiting for him? Work smarter not harder!




?!?
Isn't this the situation that sparked this whole debate in the first place? How are the PCs going to "work smarter" and arrange to wait for the NPC to be there if the NPC is, by definition, taking the shortest route? I thought working smarter entailed asking if they can find shorter or faster routes by making a know (geography) or know (local) check.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2011)

I think ExploderWizard meant figure out where the villain plans to go after he makes his escape. That way it is less about intercepting him as he flees through the city and more about anticipating his long term plans.


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think ExploderWizard meant figure out where the villain plans to go after he makes his escape. That way it is less about intercepting him as he flees through the city and more about anticipating his long term plans.




I've assumed the entire point of the shortcut question was that PC knows where the NPC is going.  If you do not know his destination, you can't determine if there is a shorter path from your current position.

"Or I get my players to think creatively and use ingenuity in the actual parameters of the challenge instead of short circuiting it with a narrative "I win with a single check" button. See there's no reason to assume I am not also eliminating just as many un-fun alternative solutions as well... which is something you seem to keep glossing over and not addressing in our converstion."

Nobody in this thread ever said PCs have the power to change reality by player suggesting (barring some specific game systems).

And technically, EVERY chase is about finding a shortcut.  Even in NASCAR, the best way to pass is on the insider, which is SHORTER.

A chase scene is inherently about who is faster or who can navigate better.  A DM who declares the NPC has taken the perfect route has just cock-blocked 50% of the standard strategy.

Of course this is my opinion. But I actually know how complicated routing is, and on this topic, it is unrealistic if every NPC has perfect routing.  Of all chases you run, only a minority of them should involve the NPC truly having determined the best route (probably a prepared genius who planned on it).  

Everybody else is realistically constrained by limits of their own knowledge of the area and the abstractness of the game map given that it was an imaginary construct.  Even assuming the GM's perfect knowledge, common advice for NPCs is to play them as themselves with THEIR knowledge, not the GMs.  Here's a challenge.  Pull up Google Maps for your city.  There's a world of difference on your options when you have Satellite mode turned on.  How much info does your game map carry?  How does that differ from what NPCs and PCs actually know?

And this goes to what EW said about the 50' wall.  A wall is an object.  It is or is not 50 feet tall.  A route is information.  Knowledge and calculation.  For which the game system has skills to determine if the character is aware of.  The game system does not have rules to determine what objects appear where or their traits.

Since a chase is about catching up, cutting off or reaching the end point, shortcut finding is part of the encounter challenge.  To rule otherwise is unrealistic to the concept.  Therefore, the possibility of a shortcut existing must exist.  That might mean 2 skill checks to determine the best path for each party (and that the NPC does indeed figure out the better path).  it might mean that the shortcut is available, IF your PC can cross the 50' wall that surrounds the palace.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2011)

Again,my reading of exploder wizards comment is he is talking post chase destination (ie after the villain loses the pcs he will wander around a bit then go to Mully MacMuffin's for some sausage). I think that is different from the chase scene in that the PCs who have his number can stop the chase and go to MacMuffins before the villain gets there. I don't actually think this point counters or supports your position, i just wanted to clarify what exploder may have intended (exploder feel free to let me know if I misunderstood your position).


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> A chase scene is inherently about who is faster or who can navigate better. A DM who declares the NPC has taken the perfect route has just cock-blocked 50% of the standard strategy.




No one claimed the NPC has taken the perfect route... No one claimed this has to be a chase scene... the PC's have the very real choice of not pursuing.



Janx said:


> Of course this is my opinion. But I actually know how complicated routing is, and on this topic, it is unrealistic if every NPC has perfect routing. Of all chases you run, only a minority of them should involve the NPC truly having determined the best route (probably a prepared genius who planned on it).




No one claimed every NPC should know the perfect or most direct route.



Janx said:


> Everybody else is realistically constrained by limits of their own knowledge of the area and the abstractness of the game map given that it was an imaginary construct. Even assuming the GM's perfect knowledge, common advice for NPCs is to play them as themselves with THEIR knowledge, not the GMs. Here's a challenge. Pull up Google Maps for your city. There's a world of difference on your options when you have Satellite mode turned on. How much info does your game map carry? How does that differ from what NPCs and PCs actually know?




You don't know the situation surrounding the why's of the NPC's knowledge concerning the city (He could have scouted an escape route beforehand...(nd no I don't think only genius level villains going into a situation where they are likely to be chased would be the only one's to plan ahead)... you are making assumnptions that are not present in the OP. 



Janx said:


> And this goes to what EW said about the 50' wall. A wall is an object. It is or is not 50 feet tall. A route is information. Knowledge and calculation. For which the game system has skills to determine if the character is aware of. The game system does not have rules to determine what objects appear where or their traits.




But the most direct route from point A to Point B either is or is not the most direct route. we are not speaking to what obstacles, challenges, etc. lie along said route, only that it is the most direct route through the city from point a to point b. As an example an expressway can be the most direct route somewhere and still be slower than another route due to traffic. That still doesn't change the fact that it is the most direct route.



Janx said:


> Since a chase is about catching up, cutting off or reaching the end point, shortcut finding is part of the encounter challenge. To rule otherwise is unrealistic to the concept. Therefore, the possibility of a shortcut existing must exist. That might mean 2 skill checks to determine the best path for each party (and that the NPC does indeed figure out the better path). it might mean that the shortcut is available, IF your PC can cross the 50' wall that surrounds the palace.




IMO, to rule that there is no shorter route than "the most direct route" is not in anyway unrealistic to the concept of a chase scene. 

Okay I have a question for you, what if the next player says he wants to find an even shorter route through the city and so on and so on. Is this realistic? I mean if we can't discount the possibility of a shorter route than the villain took... why can we discount the possibility of an even shorter route than the other player proposed... and if so then why not another and another? Do we arbitrarily let the idea work for one player but not others? Even in your example above you are now claiming there are only two paths that could be taken... but you also stated...

"Since a chase is about catching up, cutting off or reaching the end point, shortcut finding is part of the encounter challenge. To rule otherwise is unrealistic to the concept." 

So when does the number of shortcuts that supercede a previous route become unrealistic?

As to the shortcut being unrealistic to the chase scene... there have been plenty of chase scenes in literature and movies where the knowledge of a secret shortcut does not factor in.  What if you use athletics to run faster than the one you are pursuing... or endurance to keep up a faster pace than he can? What if you use acrobatics to dodge and flow through the crowd more easily to gain on him? Or how about Perception to keep him in your sights while pursuing and/or notice advantageous gaps in the crowds along the city streets... Streetwise or Bluff/Diplomacy to pretend he robbed you and get the city guards in on the chase to hinder him or force him onto another route? Use nature to sick a stray dog on him... and so on, none of these requires knowledge of a shorter route.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 7, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again,my reading of exploder wizards comment is he is talking post chase destination (ie after the villain loses the pcs he will wander around a bit then go to Mully MacMuffin's for some sausage). I think that is different from the chase scene in that the PCs who have his number can stop the chase and go to MacMuffins before the villain gets there. I don't actually think this point counters or supports your position, i just wanted to clarify what exploder may have intended (exploder feel free to let me know if I misunderstood your position).




Yes. I was indeed referring to post immediate chase. If navigation and speed don't offer winning options then attempting to be a few steps ahead in the longer run might be the better play depending on circumstances.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> IMO, to rule that there is no shorter route than "the most direct route" is not in anyway unrealistic to the concept of a chase scene.
> 
> Okay I have a question for you, what if the next player says he wants to find an even shorter route through the city and so on and so on. Is this realistic? I mean if we can't discount the possibility of a shorter route than the villain took... why can we discount the possibility of an even shorter route than the other player proposed... and if so then why not another and another? Do we arbitrarily let the idea work for one player but not others? Even in your example above you are now claiming there are only two paths that could be taken... but you also stated...
> 
> ...




I think we've come to the point where you're arguing past Janx or are caught in some kind of argument whirlpool from which you cannot escape. I don't think there's anything Janx has been saying that really contradicts any of the options here about other skill checks being relevant to a chase scene (should the PCs elect to participate in one). 

But to tie into Janx's advice earlier, if you're going to have a chase scene, why decide, right off the bat, that the NPC being chased is taking the best route from A to B and that the PCs couldn't use their knowledge skills to improve on it? Holding that option open gives the PCs one more tool in their kit to intercept their quarry, should they be creative enough to think of it. There may be circumstances in which I might say that no shortcut or other alternative route is available, but I'd be inclined to believe in Janx's advice and I'd make those a small minority.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I think we've come to the point where you're arguing past Janx or are caught in some kind of argument whirlpool from which you cannot escape. I don't think there's anything Janx has been saying that really contradicts any of the options here about other skill checks being relevant to a chase scene (should the PCs elect to participate in one).




Then you've missed my point in presenting the examples... setting one thing in stone is not railroading (as some have claimed in this thread) and the PC's have plenty of options. So no, I'm not "caught in some kind of argument whirlpool from which you_ cannot escape." But nice way of phrasing that. I think it's more apt to say that I and Janx don't see eye to eye on the objective superiority of one style vs. the other. Make no mistake I use both, but I don't think any one is better than the other... just different.



billd91 said:



			But to tie into Janx's advice earlier, if you're going to have a chase scene, why decide, right off the bat, that the NPC being chased is taking the best route from A to B and that the PCs couldn't use their knowledge skills to improve on it? Holding that option open gives the PCs one more tool in their kit to intercept their quarry, should they be creative enough to think of it. There may be circumstances in which I might say that no shortcut or other alternative route is available, but I'd be inclined to believe in Janx's advice and I'd make those a small minority.
		
Click to expand...



Because complications create more drama, tension, etc... when any and everything is possible and available, there is less tension and the story being created is less dramatic. Not being able to create a shortcut everytime you get into a chase in the city...is a good thing IMO.

I also think that when there is no impetus to think beyond the easiest and most convenient solution... most peole won't (You know, the whole sand in the eyes routine or the every attack is "I hit him" problem). How boring does "I remember a shortcut" become after the umpteenth time it's used to justify a skill check with knowledge local (more than likely by the same player)? When you add restrictions and paradigms players often have to think differently, more creatively and be more ingenuous in their approach as opposed to falling back on the standbys when anything is possible. I mean setbacks are parcel for the type of stories that D&D tries to model and yet people are arguing against the DM setting up conflict and obstacles in the PC's way (even though he has in no way eliminated their ability to make choices and act). Honestly I'm wondering why allowing the player to have a chance of success at anything they suggest is a more interesting proposition than having the player try to figure out something in a situation with setbacks and limiters?_


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yes. I was indeed referring to post immediate chase. If navigation and speed don't offer winning options then attempting to be a few steps ahead in the longer run might be the better play depending on circumstances.




But...but, how could that ever be more fun/interesting/exciting than one of the players declaring that he knows a shortcut and catching the villain earlier?  I mean they would actually have to come up with a plan to find out this information, roleplay... as well as figure out how they would capture/kill the villain wherever he is at.  It would be much more fun and interesting for everyone at the game if the PC who knows the city discovers a shortcut and they catch him then and there...  This other stuff is just railroading them.


----------



## Mort (Nov 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But...but, how could that ever be more fun/interesting/exciting than one of the players declaring that he knows a shortcut and catching the villain earlier?  I mean they would actually have to come up with a plan to find out this information, roleplay... as well as figure out how they would capture/kill the villain wherever he is at.  It would be much more fun and interesting for everyone at the game if the PC who knows the city discovers a shortcut and they catch him then and there...  This other stuff is just railroading them.




I don't know - in some games it might be fun (or at least funny) to have a PC whos shtick is "don't worry, I know a shortcut" and invariably - he does.

I think one thing going on here is that certain words are being used interchangeably which in fact are not (not in the quoted post btw, I'm talking over the past several pages). Direct does not equal fastest does not equal best - as it were. As in the villain might know _the most direct route_ but the player might know _the fastest_ route (in a bustling city it is actually quite likely the two are not one and the same) which means they have a chance of catching him.

One more thing - Railroading is the DM taking meaningful choice away from the players. Anytime it's used in some other way it gets beaten further into uselessness and more into some general "bad" term that people throw around without regard to meaning.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Because complications create more drama, tension, etc... when any and everything is possible and available, there is less tension and the story being created is less dramatic. Not being able to create a shortcut everytime you get into a chase in the city...is a good thing IMO.



Err... wasn't the original example of a PC _rolling_ a skill check to determine if they knew a shortcut? 



> I also think that when there is no impetus to think beyond the easiest and most convenient solution... most peole won't...



You should game with some of the people I game with. We usually opt for the most baroque solution possible.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Err... wasn't the original example of a PC _rolling_ a skill check to determine if they knew a shortcut?




Not sure what this has to do with what you quoted?  How does having to roll change my point?  It may not be successful all the time but in general I doubt a PC is going to try something he's not good in so it will succeed much more than it will fail and thus bedome a defacto answer.




Mallus said:


> You should game with some of the people I game with. We usually opt for the most baroque solution possible.




That's cool for your group but I am talking in genral terms here.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

Mort said:


> I don't know - in some games it might be fun (or at least funny) to have a PC whos shtick is "don't worry, I know a shortcut" and invariably - he does.




The funny thing is that with the right campaign, with the right players you are absolutely right... it would be great.  

My problem has been with the idea that a DM is wrong (objectively) for setting things in stone and/or choosing not to give narrative control to players.  IMO, it's not a right or wrong... should or shouldn't thing.  It's an assess the players you have and the type of campaign you all enjoy as well as the type of game the DM wants to run and if it all lines up with being a better game because everything is mutable and the players have narrative control over the setting then great...go for it.  However there is the very real posibility that for many types of campaigns, players and styles... this would create a worse game as well, which for some reason cannot be acknowledged by some.  In other words this playstyle isn't inherently better in an objective way than any other... it's just preference.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> I'm advising against DM certainty.  Do not absolutely declare the NPC is taking the best route.






> To sum up, being abstract allows for more variance in outcomes.  It's also probably less paperwork.



Excellent advice. I heartily approve (probably because this is the way in DM!).

This brings to light one of the (initially) counter-intuitive ways a DM can lend the semblance of reality to the game world: by not claiming exhaustive knowledge over it. I treat my campaign settings as if they're simply too big for me to know every nook and cranny of. Instead, I act as if their places I've lived for awhile; I'm more than a tourist but something less than a authoritative guide. I can give basic directions to certain places, tell you what I think is interesting and what places to avoid. But I'm more than able to surprised, proven wrong, and shown sites I didn't know existed. 

In the case of the chase and a map, my first thought was: how _good_ was the map? Did it account for every possible route, both street-level and above/below? What about traffic/congestion? Random possible random encounters? To my way of thinking, claiming the map is definitive opens the DM to criticism over every detail they neglected -- and make no mistake, every DM misses important details.

I make my settings seem real(er?) by acting as if they were too big for me to catalog with complete accuracy in exhaustive detal, and leaving them open to details added by players, random rolls, and various ab-libbing at the table. 

(and it's hardly the most ass-backward thing I've found that actually works well at the table)


----------



## Nagol (Nov 7, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Err... wasn't the original example of a PC _rolling_ a skill check to determine if they knew a shortcut?
> 
> 
> <snip>




No, the OP was about a player declaring that his character was so familiar with the city that he should know of a shortcut.



> The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."


----------



## Mallus (Nov 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> How does having to roll change my point?



Ponder this: is there a difference between automatically hitting and rolling to hit? 



> It may not be successful all the time...



Which is a key point. Sometimes the result will be the PC's cutting off the escaping villain, other times they'll get away and the PC's will have to adapt their plans accordingly. 



> ... but in general I doubt a PC is going to try something he's not good in...



This is an assumption. A completely unwaranted one, at that. Ever see a pre-4e mage roll to hit with a weapon? 



> ... so it will succeed much more than it will fail and thus bedome a defacto answer.



I have no idea what you're getting at.

So we should avoid rolling in situations where the players are likely to succeed, because that removes possible outcomes from the game, and instead, decide the outcome by fiat, which somehow _increases_ the number of possible outcomes, excepting, of course, the outcome you decided not to roll for? I is puzzled.

I say just roll for it: sometimes the bad guy get's away, sometimes they don't. And I don't see the problem w/a PC whose shtick is knowing a city like the back of their hand...


----------



## Mallus (Nov 7, 2011)

Nagol said:


> No, the OP was about a player declaring that his character was so familiar with the city that he should know of a shortcut.



The player did say "chances are" (not that it really matters). I'd still reply "hey, chances are you might - roll".


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 7, 2011)

It seems like the discussion keeps getting herded back to "if you rule out a shortcut, the bad guy gets away." Even Mallus seems to take this view to some degree:


			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I say just roll for it: sometimes the bad guy get's away, sometimes they don't.



If the PC fails his shortcut check, the bad guy gets away.

What I don't think most of the people who are against the PCs engaging in narrative control are advocating is the bad guy getting away. They're saying, "the bad guy might get away, and he might not. What's that? Um, no, there's no shortcut. What do you do?" It's not a "shortcut or lose" situation inherently. I mean, I could see that being the case some of the time (if he has a mount on empty streets while the PCs are on foot), but I don't think that's been added to this scenario. Why not do something else to stop him? Disrupt him, catch him, shoot him, call for help from guards, ask people to get in the way because he stole your purse, etc? There's a lot of alternatives here other than taking a shortcut. Yeah, he might get away, but a shortcut is only one way to prevent it. As always, play what you like


----------



## Imaro (Nov 7, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Ponder this: is there a difference between automatically hitting and rolling to hit?




I thnk we both know the answer to this...




Mallus said:


> Which is a key point. Sometimes the result will be the PC's cutting off the escaping villain, other times they'll get away and the PC's will have to adapt their plans accordingly.




But again, what has this added to the gameplay or story? Is there a reason that this is a better solution in this particular case than actually having an NPC who knows the most direct route and seeing how the PC's handle the complication? See that's the piece I am missing... why is granting the players narrative control to create a shortcut to stop the villain in this situation objectively more enjoyable/better/etc. than having the NPC take the most direct route and having the PC's deal with that situation?




Mallus said:


> This is an assumption. A completely unwaranted one, at that. Ever see a pre-4e mage roll to hit with a weapon?




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?? Really?



Mallus said:


> I have no idea what you're getting at.




If I'm a character who is intimately familiar with the city we are in then I am going to assume that he has the Knowledge(local) skill or something similar... otherwise he doesn't have intimate knowledge of the area per the rules. Thus I will succeed more than I will fail in any roll involving that skill (going by average DC's). That said it then becomes easier and more reliable for me to fall back on my "knowledge of shortcuts" in any chase scenario than to think of anything else and thus it will most likely become my fallback in that situation. That's what I am saying. 

I think it's almost improbable that in this situation a player will purposefully choose to use a bad skill.



Mallus said:


> So we should avoid rolling in situations where the players are likely to succeed, because that removes possible outcomes from the game, and instead, decide the outcome by fiat, which somehow _increases_ the number of possible outcomes, excepting, of course, the outcome you decided not to roll for? I is puzzled.




No we should have the freedom to set up conflicts, paradigms and obstacles that challenge the PC's to find other ways to approach and solve problems... How is this any different than DM fiat that adds a trap, terrain or whatever to a fight in a room in order to make the encounter more challenging and/or force the PC's to use different tactics in order to overcome it?



Mallus said:


> I say just roll for it: sometimes the bad guy get's away, sometimes they don't. And I don't see the problem w/a PC whose shtick is knowing a city like the back of their hand...




And if the situation always has the same setup, guess what... you're probably going to end up rolling the same things every time.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> That's definitely an interesting, though IMO also limited, stance to have on the subject. I'm curious do you ever do sandbox play? I ask this because it is a whole playstyle where much, if not all of the campaign world is assumed to be created beforehand for the players to explore...How do the sentiments above factor into a game that is centered around exploration? Do your feelings change in such a game as to what is or isn't established... or is it still only in play?
> /snip.




Yes, I ran the World's Largest Dungeon which is pretty much as sandboxy as you can get.  The entire world is mapped out in 5 foot squares.

Guess what.  I changed stuff all the freaking time.


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It seems like the discussion keeps getting herded back to "if you rule out a shortcut, the bad guy gets away." Even Mallus seems to take this view to some degree:
> 
> If the PC fails his shortcut check, the bad guy gets away.
> 
> What I don't think most of the people who are against the PCs engaging in narrative control are advocating is the bad guy getting away. They're saying, "the bad guy might get away, and he might not. What's that? Um, no, there's no shortcut. What do you do?" It's not a "shortcut or lose" situation inherently. I mean, I could see that being the case some of the time (if he has a mount on empty streets while the PCs are on foot), but I don't think that's been added to this scenario. Why not do something else to stop him? Disrupt him, catch him, shoot him, call for help from guards, ask people to get in the way because he stole your purse, etc? There's a lot of alternatives here other than taking a shortcut. Yeah, he might get away, but a shortcut is only one way to prevent it. As always, play what you like




Hey, I don't disagree.  The shortcut check is one of many options I'm going to quickly consider when I hit the street in hot pursuit of the NPC.

I may even expect that if I can't see the NPC, but know he's heading to point B, that a skill check is in order just to get me directions to the Point B (with higher rolls = a better route).  Or the GM shows me the city map and says "which way do you take?"

Once the route factor is determined, then I'm hoping I can run faster to ensure I get there first.  So the shortcut being granted, isn't the end of anything.

Ironically, Imaro's comment to JC here, seems contradictory.  I've been advocating using mechanics to simulate the decision process.  Declaring absolutes like "the NPC takes the best path" is narrating.  So I would say I am advocating a simulationist approach.

As to Imaro's concern to creating challenge or complication to the game or story, that's what failure is.  Failing to win the skill check is the complication.  No different than failing to hit the bad guy.  The challenge is by making the bad guy sufficiently skilled to justify him having the chance to beat me.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Yes, I ran the World's Largest Dungeon which is pretty much as sandboxy as you can get. The entire world is mapped out in 5 foot squares.
> 
> Guess what. I changed stuff all the freaking time.




Oh, I don't doubt you did change things, seeing as how it was a published sandbox as opposed to one you created yourself. I would assume that you tweaked it to suit you and your group more. I guess I'm most curious as to the answer to the following two questions...ok, it's 3 the first could be two questions depending on the answer to the first... 

1. Do you believe the point of sandbox play is exploration of the world... and if you don't what do you think it is

2. Did you let your players change things in the narrative or was that mostly your domain as DM when you ran this campaign?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 8, 2011)

billd91 said:


> But to tie into Janx's advice earlier, *if you're going to have a chase scene,* why decide, right off the bat, that the NPC being chased is taking the best route from A to B and that the PCs couldn't use their knowledge skills to improve on it? Holding that option open gives the PCs one more tool in their kit to intercept their quarry, should they be creative enough to think of it. There may be circumstances in which I might say that no shortcut or other alternative route is available, but I'd be inclined to believe in Janx's advice and I'd make those a small minority.




This is an important point. Who is deciding that there WILL be a chase seen and at what point was this decided? 

On one hand if the PCs are being ushered through scenes as if they were participants in a three ring circus then allowing them narrative altering means to progress makes perfect sense. It is after all, a chase scene and thus the ringmaster sayeth that thou shalt give chase and the only possible outcome is to run down the fleeing villain or fail and let him get away. 

On the other hand if the players during the course of play, see a fleeing villain that appears to be taking the most favorable route away from them and has a head start its perhaps time to start thinking of solutions that either move them faster than the bad guy or maybe try and divine where he might be headed. This might not be a chase right now at all. This could be a quick note sent by pigeon to the guards at the gate to delay this scoundrel while the PCs march toward him at a stately pace looking badass with long coats flapping in the breeze.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 8, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is an important point. Who is deciding that there WILL be a chase seen and at what point was this decided?




Huh. Usually, when the PCs start chasing someone, I assume I'm going to have a chase scene. Go figure.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 8, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Huh. Usually, when the PCs start chasing someone, I assume I'm going to have a chase scene. Go figure.




Well, it seemed (from the way the part I quoted was written) that the chase scene was being discussed from a GM perspective, what with the musing about the npc route taken.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Ironically, Imaro's comment to JC here, seems contradictory. I've been advocating using mechanics to simulate the decision process. Declaring absolutes like "the NPC takes the best path" is narrating. So I would say I am advocating a simulationist approach.




Why do you assume that I am a proponent for "simulation" in this argument. In this entire discussion I have used 4e terms and mechanics... and 4e is not known for it's simulationist bent, so I don't get why you keep assuming this. I don't believe (and I may well be mistaken) I have argued for simulationism at all in this thread.



Janx said:


> As to Imaro's concern to *creating challenge or complication to the game or story*, that's what failure is. Failing to win the skill check is the complication. No different than failing to hit the bad guy. The challenge is by making the bad guy sufficiently skilled to justify him having the chance to beat me.




Emphasis mine: This is what I have been arguing for... game and story.

See I think you find the challenge in simulationism, or the simulating of the skillset that the bad guy has and whether the random rolling of the dice through the use of that skillset says that is what happened. That's not what I'm concerned with and I don't think 4e is a particularly good engine for running that type of game (but that's a whole other discussion).

Ok, since you want some type of simulation or a sense of mechanical fairness...Here's a better example.

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 have added to the challenge of gameplay through my skill challenge complication (which was just the mechanical formalization of me stating that the NPC took the most direct route anyway.) and added to the story with the extra tension and drama that the complication's narrative brings. 

So does formalizing it through mechanics in any way make it more "right" in your eyes? Personally I'm not seeing the difference in what I did here and me just stating that the NPC takes the most direct route, I mean except for the wordcount.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Hey, I don't disagree.  The shortcut check is one of many options I'm going to quickly consider when I hit the street in hot pursuit of the NPC.
> 
> I may even expect that if I can't see the NPC, but know he's heading to point B, that a skill check is in order just to get me directions to the Point B (with higher rolls = a better route).  Or the GM shows me the city map and says "which way do you take?"
> 
> ...



Again, we're on the same page. I love when that happens (no XP possible, of course!). I'm all for the NPC having to make the same checks the party would make.

On the subject of other routes, I might take a less viable route through town, if I thought I could get there faster. That is, say the villain is on Route A, which is the fastest, most direct route (it takes 5 minutes double moving [or 10 minutes at a walk] to reach his destination). I might take Route B, which is 7 minutes double moving (or 14 at a walk). Why? I'd hope that if he saw us lose him, he might slow down to be more inconspicuous. In such a case, as long as we jog to the destination, we'll arrive a couple minutes ahead of him, still cutting him off. He might keep jogging, sure, but he might not, either. It'd be a gamble, but a less direct route might still be "faster" depending on the speed the villain moves.

But yeah, it comes back to decisions the GM has to make, and fair ways to do it. Deciding if the NPC keeps jogging to get somewhere faster or slows down to remain inconspicuous is a lot less clear mechanically than having him make a Streetwise or Knowledge (local) check to know the best route. That comes down more to GM fiat than determining the route, in my opinion. It's NPC personality, for which they have little mechanics for (and that's good, in my opinion, as well).

Just some thoughts on it. As always, play what you like


----------



## scourger (Nov 8, 2011)

Bad.  I tried to give my players a little narrative control in our current game, and they didn't like it.  I think they could go for the chase shortcut if they came up with it, but it would come down to their idea plus a skill roll to resolve it.  I find that the players affect the story through their actions, successes & failures.  They usually don't want to help define the story.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Oh, I don't doubt you did change things, seeing as how it was a published sandbox as opposed to one you created yourself. I would assume that you tweaked it to suit you and your group more. I guess I'm most curious as to the answer to the following two questions...ok, it's 3 the first could be two questions depending on the answer to the first...
> 
> 1. Do you believe the point of sandbox play is exploration of the world... and if you don't what do you think it is




I would agree with that.  Sandbox play certainly lends itself towards exploration of the world.  However, that world exists in potentia until such time as its actually been interacted with.  IOW, unless it's come up in play, nothing actually truly exists.



> 2. Did you let your players change things in the narrative or was that mostly your domain as DM when you ran this campaign?




I generally have no problems with the players influencing things.  Since I was playing D&D, there are no real mechanics for players directly narrating, but, I would certainly allow most suggestions.  If the players wanted to find something, for example, they generally would.  Then again, I have very good players, so, their suggestions automatically take the game into account and are intended to improve the game.

A minor example might be one of my players who wanted a magic item with magic pockets.  He just wanted something that he could reach into at various points in time and pull out something strange.  So, he got it and I used a rather massive random table to find out what he had in his pocket each time he reached in.  Sometimes it would be incorporated into the game, sometimes not.

But, as far as the world being a fixed point before the PC's interacted with it?  Not a chance.  Heck, I replaced one region with the 3e rebuild of White Plume Mountain at one point.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.




OTOH, that's simply poor design in any case.  Deciding ahead of time that a fairly logical step is an automatic failure, that carries consequences and has no way of being known before the attempt is always poor design.  That's not adding a challenge, that's just road blocking, and, if taken to an extreme, railroading.


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2011)

Once i realize there's rules to cover the situation, i try to use the rules to model it.

I dont assume i have a chase planned. But if a chase happens, and the players askabout routing and shortcuts, as in this thread, itbecomes obvious to me that some rules can be applied.

That keeps me honest.

Additionally, since i trend to level appropriate challenges, if the npc is a few levelsabove the pcs, that still limits his streetwise to level+3 + other bonuses.  He can't be mega awesome just because.

Also, of note.  I play 3.x. I am not familiar with 4e, nor do i particularly care to. So everything i'm saying should be considered from that context. If it matters.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But you haven't provided an objectively good reason fore taking such a blanket stance... that's my problem with your statements, nothing in them shows me why this is a better way.



It's better because that approach doesn't restrict options for no good reason other than "because I say so"!

This reminds me of the 'Tomb of Horrors' module. To quote one of countless examples:


> Pulling the lever opens a trap door immediately in front of the fresco and dumps you into a 30 foot deep pit filled with spikes! The module is careful to note that the trap door is three feet thick and *cannot be detected by sounding or by any magic which detects traps*. Even True Seeing will only show the outlines of the trap door. "_t will not show what it does."_



_

The module designer just decides that magic cannot detect the trap. And to me that's only a small step away from declaring that there's only one way (or n ways) to circumvent an obstacle, i.e. the way(s) that the designer happened to think of.

E.g. countless adventures feature doors that cannot be unlocked 'by any means' except using the proper key (or alternatively by solving a riddle) without explaining why that is the case.

This is particularly annoying in a game that features spells (or other means) that seem to be designed to allow the pcs to do exactly that which the adventure designer explicitly forbids.

It also reminds me of video games that flat out state "You cannot go there." or "You cannot do that." except in that case I can understand why there is a limitation (You cannot code for every contingency). Tabletop RPGs should be free from such artificial limitations._


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I would agree with that. Sandbox play certainly lends itself towards exploration of the world. However, that world exists in potentia until such time as its actually been interacted with. IOW, unless it's come up in play, nothing actually truly exists.




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?




Hussar said:


> I generally have no problems with the players influencing things. Since I was playing D&D, there are no real mechanics for players directly narrating, but, I would certainly allow most suggestions. If the players wanted to find something, for example, they generally would. Then again, I have very good players, so, their suggestions automatically take the game into account and are intended to improve the game.
> 
> A minor example might be one of my players who wanted a magic item with magic pockets. He just wanted something that he could reach into at various points in time and pull out something strange. So, he got it and I used a rather massive random table to find out what he had in his pocket each time he reached in. Sometimes it would be incorporated into the game, sometimes not.




See I'm not a big fan of wishlists but to each his own... I again would find it unsatisfactory to play in a game based around survival and exploration where I can just will into exsistence a magic item I want. For me it cheapens the experience of this type of game, I want to discover, face and overcome the things in the sandbox with my own cleverness and ingenuity (as opposed to story power). YMMV of course. On the other hand I find it odd that you can't see the detriments of promoting this style without qualifiers, as earlier even you admitted youwould probably run differently with new players as opposed to the ones you have now.



Hussar said:


> But, as far as the world being a fixed point before the PC's interacted with it? Not a chance. Heck, I replaced one region with the 3e rebuild of White Plume Mountain at one point.




Hey to each his own, as I said earlier I think that the DM switchng things as well as I as a player having the power to "suggest" things into exsistence wouldn't be to my tastes... but then again that's my point, one style doesn't fit all.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, that's simply poor design in any case. Deciding ahead of time that a fairly logical step is an automatic failure, that carries consequences and has no way of being known before the attempt is always poor design. That's not adding a challenge, that's just road blocking, and, if taken to an extreme, railroading.




Wait so any skill challenge in which a group of PC's can't bring every skill to bear and certain skills (like wasting time looking for a shortcut when there isn't one.) are logically failures is bad design... I'm sorry but I disagree. The same way I design terrain that hinders and restricts options or traps that draw actions away from the main combat... it is nothing more than a complication I have injected into the mechanics.

So do you think making a grizzled veteran warrior NPC be negatively influenced (resulting in failures) by intimidation checks is bad design? It's the exact same mechanics...


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Also, of note. I play 3.x. I am not familiar with 4e, nor do i particularly care to. So everything i'm saying should be considered from that context. If it matters.




I think this has alot to do with it. In the more simulationist ruleset of PF/3.x I would probably set things up as you have... but 4e is not built on a simulationist foundation and the tools it provides aren't, IMO all that well suited to that style.

EDIT: Just as an example... in most skill challenges as described in the DMG... NPC skill doesn't really play a part in how hard or easy the challenge is.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, that's simply poor design in any case.  Deciding ahead of time that a fairly logical step is an automatic failure, that carries consequences and has no way of being known before the attempt is always poor design.  That's not adding a challenge, that's just road blocking, and, if taken to an extreme, railroading.




Actually, that's a consequence of imperfect information and happens all the time – something appears one way but really is something else.  A PC may cast _Charm Person_ on a succubus in the shape of a human female, but it automatically fails – because it isn't a human female.

A person may believe that route B will be faster than route A _and be wrong_ – thus the failure – imagine a Moriarty-like character arranging for this normally slow route to be the fastest for today – traffic on this route has be blocked/routed away while the normally good route is conveniently blocked by a minion intentionally crashing his carriage.  A true Moriarty-type will arrange such a thing _because he knows the PCs are intimately familiar with the city and likely to go for the alternatives_.

If the PCs decide to follow and hound the bad guy then they can keep him in sight and continue to work to catch him i.e. don't suffer a failure.

If they try to get in front, they lose valuable time as he anticipated that possibility.  That time loss isn't fatal to the scenario, but does count as a loss in the skill challenge.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> It's better because that approach doesn't restrict options for no good reason other than "because I say so"!




Mechanically I have created a harder challenge without eliminating the majority of alternate means to solve said challenge... I have also given a reason, the NPC is taking the most direct route.





Jhaelen said:


> The module designer just decides that magic cannot detect the trap. And to me that's only a small step away from declaring that there's only one way (or n ways) to circumvent an obstacle, i.e. the way(s) that the designer happened to think of.




There are always only n ways to circumvent an obstacle... why should any and everything be a possibility at all times? 



Jhaelen said:


> E.g. countless adventures feature doors that cannot be unlocked 'by any means' except using the proper key (or alternatively by solving a riddle) without explaining why that is the case.
> 
> This is particularly annoying in a game that features spells (or other means) that seem to be designed to allow the pcs to do exactly that which the adventure designer explicitly forbids.




Well I have explained why the PC's cannot use Know(local) in the specific way of finding a shortcut...because the NPC is taking the most direct route. If you equate me setting up one skill as unuseable and an auto-failure with there being only one solution to capture the villain... Well that seems mopre a failing on your part to think of other options as I have certainly listed numerous alternatives earlier in the thread.



Jhaelen said:


> It also reminds me of video games that flat out state "You cannot go there." or "You cannot do that." except in that case I can understand why there is a limitation (You cannot code for every contingency). Tabletop RPGs should be free from such artificial limitations.




That doesn't mean everything should be possible in every situation. Again I point to terrain, hazards and traps... these are all in-combat ways of making the encounter harder, limiting available choices and making the situation more complicated. why are these good and interesting to use in combat, but when I do the same thing in a skill challenge it's "bad design" and objectively wrong?


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Mechanically I have created a harder challenge without eliminating the majority of alternate means to solve said challenge... I have also given a reason, the NPC is taking the most direct route.




Imagine we live in a world where DMs may be audited by the Game Master Authority.  You've been audited.  He's going to ask you to "prove it."  Will your declaration of NPC perfect knowledge pass scrutiny?

I realize there's no such thing as the GMA and you are free to do what you want.  Some of us are advising, "hey, be careful.  that might not be the best practice."



Imaro said:


> There are always only n ways to circumvent an obstacle... why should any and everything be a possibility at all times?




Things being intentionally limited as "thought of by the NPC, and not the GM" should be a rarity.  Moriarty is the rare exception where GM knowledge should be fully available to the NPC.  The extreme abuse of this tactic is when every NPC is perfectly prepared for the PCs and thus able to counter the PCs every strategy.



Imaro said:


> Well I have explained why the PC's cannot use Know(local) in the specific way of finding a shortcut...because the NPC is taking the most direct route. If you equate me setting up one skill as unuseable and an auto-failure with there being only one solution to capture the villain... Well that seems mopre a failing on your part to think of other options as I have certainly listed numerous alternatives earlier in the thread.




I forget who proposed this way back, but technically, if you're playing mapless, the PCs may still need to roll a check to see if they know how to get to point B, and to which route is the best for their needs.  That last is important.  Regardless of what the GM is doing behind the screen, the PCs don't know that, and are still going to pursue taking they best route they can.  They aren't going to deliberately take the worst route.

Which has the ironic twist.  The route the PCs take is uncertain.  If they fail the skill check miserably, they may completely miss Moriarty's trap by way of incompetence.



Imaro said:


> That doesn't mean everything should be possible in every situation. Again I point to terrain, hazards and traps... these are all in-combat ways of making the encounter harder, limiting available choices and making the situation more complicated. why are these good and interesting to use in combat, but when I do the same thing in a skill challenge it's "bad design" and objectively wrong?




How about it being bad practice if done all the time.  And when someone talks of "I'll do it this way because I'm the GM" it sounds like they're on the way to bad GMing land.


I can't put my finger on it, but there's also a difference in the GM creating starting conditions and hard facts like, there IS a pit trap in the room that the fight takes place versus the NPC knowing the perfect route and planning tricks along the way for the PC.

One is about real world positional facts.  The bad guys live in the dungeon of doom.  They know the pit trap is there (perhaps Phil fell in?).  When the PCs show up, they fight, and use the pit to their advantage.

The other is about an intangible map and information and execution of a chase.  There's so many variables there that as a person familiar with the subject of routing, only very special NPCs would be certain of truly having it right.  Anybody else (not Moriarty) would be better simulated by die rolls.


----------



## Mort (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> There are always only n ways to circumvent an obstacle... why should any and everything be a possibility at all times?




While there may only be n ways to circumvent an obstacle it is _highly_ likely that the DM has not thought of all of them. If the DM always allows only ways that he has thought of and no others, the players are likely to be playing "guess what the DM is thinking" instead of actually solving challanges. For me, this is not a desired result.

This isn't even a player narrative control issue - this is a player creativity/versatility issue. My players routinely come up with solutions that I have never considered, I'm not about to penalize them for that.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Imagine we live in a world where DMs may be audited by the Game Master Authority. You've been audited. He's going to ask you to "prove it." Will your declaration of NPC perfect knowledge pass scrutiny?
> 
> I realize there's no such thing as the GMA and you are free to do what you want. Some of us are advising, "hey, be careful. that might not be the best practice."




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? 





Janx said:


> Things being intentionally limited as "thought of by the NPC, and not the GM" should be a rarity. Moriarty is the rare exception where GM knowledge should be fully available to the NPC. The extreme abuse of this tactic is when every NPC is perfectly prepared for the PCs and thus able to counter the PCs every strategy.




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.





Janx said:


> I forget who proposed this way back, but technically, if you're playing mapless, the PCs may still need to roll a check to see if they know how to get to point B, and to which route is the best for their needs. That last is important. Regardless of what the GM is doing behind the screen, the PCs don't know that, and are still going to pursue taking they best route they can. They aren't going to deliberately take the worst route.




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.



Janx said:


> Which has the ironic twist. The route the PCs take is uncertain. If they fail the skill check miserably, they may completely miss Moriarty's trap by way of incompetence.




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. 





Janx said:


> How about it being bad practice if done all the time. And when someone talks of "I'll do it this way because I'm the GM" it sounds like they're on the way to bad GMing land.




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). 




Janx said:


> I can't put my finger on it, but there's also a difference in the GM creating starting conditions and hard facts like, there IS a pit trap in the room that the fight takes place versus the NPC knowing the perfect route and planning tricks along the way for the PC.




I don't see it... both are complications in an encounter.  Plain and simple.



Janx said:


> One is about real world positional facts. The bad guys live in the dungeon of doom. They know the pit trap is there (perhaps Phil fell in?). When the PCs show up, they fight, and use the pit to their advantage.




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?



Janx said:


> The other is about an intangible map and information and execution of a chase. There's so many variables there that as a person familiar with the subject of routing, only very special NPCs would be certain of truly having it right. Anybody else (not Moriarty) would be better simulated by die rolls.




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.


----------



## Nagol (Nov 8, 2011)

Mort said:


> While there may only be n ways to circumvent an obstacle it is _highly_ likely that the DM has not thought of all of them. If the DM always allows only ways that he has thought of and no others, the players are likely to be playing "guess what the DM is thinking" instead of actually solving challanges. For me, this is not a desired result.
> 
> This isn't even a player narrative control issue - this is a player creativity/versatility issue. My players routinely come up with solutions that I have never considered, I'm not about to penalize them for that.




I don't anyone is advocating that position; quite the opposite.  The route the villain is taking and the fact is is the most direct were noted items -- the map with the route exists after all.

In fact, this appears to be the only constraint we're are definitely aware of.  Nothing in the original stuation suggests only a single solution is permissable or that the outcome is foregone -- just that the route is known.  It is the most direct and/or fastest.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Mort said:


> While there may only be n ways to circumvent an obstacle it is _highly_ likely that the DM has not thought of all of them. If the DM always allows only ways that he has thought of and no others, the players are likely to be playing "guess what the DM is thinking" instead of actually solving challanges. For me, this is not a desired result.




Where did anyone do this? Eliminating one avenue to solve a situation does not in itself eliminate all but one avenue to solve said situation. They really are totally different things. .. and I have given ample examples of alternative solutions and actions earlier in the thread to discredit this notion.

By eliminating one possible solution I have perhaps made it a more challenging encounter for my players... but I haven't excluded all solutions I may not have thought of... I have only excluded one that I actually did think of and decided would not be applicable in this particualr challenge.



Janx said:


> This isn't even a player narrative control issue - this is a player creativity/versatility issue. My players routinely come up with solutions that I have never considered, I'm not about to penalize them for that.




You shouldn't penalize them for that, but if you stated in your notes that the NPC takes the most direct route... it is a solution you thought of, and rejected for this encounter. So I fail to see how the paragraph above is in any way applicable to the discussion.

Or are we automatically assuming extremes and worse case scenarios here... because if so it seems that only those of one side are being pointed out.


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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?



 Because when the GMA says "prove it" they mean for you to take the role of the NPC and prove you actually have the better route.  Show it on the map.  then account for the bestnest of this route by the vaguaries of the map.  The same vaguaries that if the NPC can take advantage of, so can the PCs.


On dungeering skill being used to fill the hole.  BS.  I don't give players the ability to change physical reality by declaring it to be so.  The pit is there is a fact.  dungeering can give them info about the hole the players did not know.  it cannot change the fact that there is a pit to a former pit filled with debris.

Asking if there is a shortcut isn't changing a solid fact.  the entire city exists as a vague representation on the map.  Details have not been documented like alleyways, back doors, etc.  As such, you can't tell me Moriarty has the perfect route if you don't prove it to me.  Show me EVERY doorway, alleyway and floor plan of EVERY building, backyards and fences on your map. Because a shortcut will likely take advantage of that level of detail that exists on no map.

I doubt any character will know or have access to the full details of the city.
Somebody familiar with the area and scouting it, will spot SOME of those details that they use to cross Mrs. Roger's yard by hopping the fence and shaving a block on the route to St. Andrew's church.  Differing characters will have different details in their experience.

again, asking for details or summarizing in the form of asking "Is there a shortcut" is not true player narrative or forced content generation.  There is a fuzziness of information that justifies the possibility that something exists that was not explicitly defined because the act of defining it is too much work.

If we're arguing that asking about a shortcut is the same as the player telling the GM that the stone floor is really made of wood, then we're clearly not on the same plane of discussion.


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Where did anyone do this? Eliminating one avenue to solve a situation does not in itself eliminate all but one avenue to solve said situation. They really are totally different things. .. and I have given ample examples of alternative solutions and actions earlier in the thread to discredit this notion.
> 
> By eliminating one possible solution I have perhaps made it a more challenging encounter for my players... but I haven't excluded all solutions I may not have thought of... I have only excluded one that I actually did think of and decided would not be applicable in this particualr challenge.
> 
> ...




You've mis-attributed here.  It was Mort who said it's not a player narrrative issue.

I would advise writing that the NPC takes the most direct route in my notes.  And at game time, I would certainly disregard it.

At the game event, I would consider what the NPC would do, with the knowledge the NPC has.  If his inclination is to run, he'll run, using the best route he can think of at the time.

but note, I don't declare or assume he truly has the best route.  Only that his intent is to take the best route.  People do all sorts of things that they think are optimal, but may not in actuality be the optimal choice.

As a observation to 4e, they use the term Skill Challenge, which strikes me as an encounter where a specific skill is called for to resolve.

I don't know what I'd call it, but I'd consider any non-combat, non-social problem to be a challenge that might have an obvious skill to use (Swim to get across the river), but other skills or ideas may be applied.  As a GM, I don't even waste time thinking about it.  Let the PCs surprise me with an alternative solution.

This chase situation is just that.  I might have a note that says the NPC is cowardly and will run to Point B where his escape portal awaits.  From that, I deliberately do not plan much more. 

 I want to organically run the encounter, so I can abjudicate what the PCs think to do, rather than abjudicate what I planned for them to do.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Because when the GMA says "prove it" they mean for you to take the role of the NPC and prove you actually have the better route.  Show it on the map.  then account for the bestnest of this route by the vaguaries of the map.  The same vaguaries that if the NPC can take advantage of, so can the PCs.




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?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Because when the GMA says "prove it" they mean for you to take the role of the NPC and prove you actually have the better route. Show it on the map. then account for the bestnest of this route by the vaguaries of the map. The same vaguaries that if the NPC can take advantage of, so can the PCs.




EDIT: Edited my answer because I think Umbran summed it up better than I am explaining it.



Janx said:


> On dungeering skill being used to fill the hole. BS. I don't give players the ability to change physical reality by declaring it to be so. The pit is there is a fact. dungeering can give them info about the hole the players did not know. it cannot change the fact that there is a pit to a former pit filled with debris.
> 
> Asking if there is a shortcut isn't changing a solid fact. the entire city exists as a vague representation on the map. Details have not been documented like alleyways, back doors, etc. As such, you can't tell me Moriarty has the perfect route if you don't prove it to me. Show me EVERY doorway, alleyway and floor plan of EVERY building, backyards and fences on your map. Because a shortcut will likely take advantage of that level of detail that exists on no map.




In my notes both the pit exsisting in that room is a fact and the NPC taking the most direct route is also a fact... why is that so hard for you to accept. 

When I place the pit in the room, do I have to prove through simulation of time, manpower, abilities, etc. that the inhabitants could have realistically built it? Why do I have such strenuous proof to meet on one complication of an encounter but not another... you seem to be quite inconsistent here. Do you prove every hindrance to the PC's out in the way you are demanding I do for the NPC's route in your own game? If so, where do you draw the line?



Janx said:


> I doubt any character will know or have access to the full details of the city.




No one claimed they would.



Janx said:


> Somebody familiar with the area and scouting it, will spot SOME of those details that they use to cross Mrs. Roger's yard by hopping the fence and shaving a block on the route to St. Andrew's church. Differing characters will have different details in their experience.
> 
> again, asking for details or summarizing in the form of asking "Is there a shortcut" is not true player narrative or forced content generation. There is a fuzziness of information that justifies the possibility that something exists that was not explicitly defined because the act of defining it is too much work.




But I did define it and it wasn't too much work. I have in this thread defined it in game terms with a skill challenge and defined it in narrative terms by attributing it as the NPC's knowledge. 



Janx said:


> If we're arguing that asking about a shortcut is the same as the player telling the GM that the stone floor is really made of wood, then we're clearly not on the same plane of discussion.




Well I'm arguing that using a skil check to eliminate a complication I have set up in an encounter is the same... I'm not sure what you are arguing for anymore. And I am also starting to think that perhaps due to system assumption or mechanical differences we are on two differnt planes of discussion.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> I would advise writing that the NPC takes the most direct route in my notes. And at game time, I would certainly disregard it.




So you wrote this down because???



Janx said:


> At the game event, I would consider what the NPC would do, with the knowledge the NPC has. If his inclination is to run, he'll run, using the best route he can think of at the time.




So then why didn't you just write in your notes that the NPC will take the most direct route known to him... they are two different things.  One is creating a definite complication for the PC's to overcome... the other is creating the potential for an complication to arise.



Janx said:


> but note, I don't declare or assume he truly has the best route. Only that his intent is to take the best route. People do all sorts of things that they think are optimal, but may not in actuality be the optimal choice.




So then the notes you wrote are incorrect and it is actually more a failure in communicating what you really want out of the encounter. You don't want there to be an extra complication... you want there to be a chance of an extra complication to occur. That's cool, but then I would say your notes should reflect that.



Janx said:


> As a observation to 4e, they use the term Skill Challenge, which strikes me as an encounter where a specific skill is called for to resolve.




Actually most skill challenges require the use of multiple skill checks by multiple PC's to resolve. 



Janx said:


> I don't know what I'd call it, but I'd consider any non-combat, non-social problem to be a challenge that might have an obvious skill to use (Swim to get across the river), but other skills or ideas may be applied. As a GM, I don't even waste time thinking about it. Let the PCs surprise me with an alternative solution.




You keep missing the point, they can still surprise you with an alternate solution in the scenario as I pressented it (not sure why this concept is ignored repeatedly in this discusion). All I did was eliminate a single option to increase the diffculty of winning this encounter. 



Janx said:


> This chase situation is just that. I might have a note that says the NPC is cowardly and will run to Point B where his escape portal awaits. From that, I deliberately do not plan much more.




And in this situation your notes reflect how you plan on running it, no facts as to his escape route have been written down (except for the fact that there is a portal at the end of it) so I have no problem with PC's trying to find a shortcut (given that they have knowledge of where the villain is going). 



Janx said:


> I want to organically run the encounter, so I can abjudicate what the PCs think to do, rather than abjudicate what I planned for them to do.




*sigh* how did disallowing a shortcut in any way lead the PC's down a planned road? In the end you are still abjudicating whether you think or don't think their ideas will work... I just did the exact same thing for a single idea beforehand... so what's the big deal?


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2011)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Nov 8, 2011)

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 (Nov 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 8, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Fair answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Janx said:


> 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?







The Shaman said:


> 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.








Janx said:


> 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.







Janx said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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?).



Imaro said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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.



Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually play this way?




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


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 9, 2011)

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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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 .



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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. 



Jhaelen said:


> 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



Jhaelen said:


> 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. 



Jhaelen said:


> 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?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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.



Imaro said:


> 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!


Imaro said:


> 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.


Imaro said:


> 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.


Imaro said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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? 



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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..."



Jhaelen said:


> 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. 




Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

billd91 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> [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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

MarkB said:


> 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.



MarkB said:


> 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. 



MarkB said:


> 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?


----------



## Janx (Nov 9, 2011)

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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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)
> ...




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 (Nov 9, 2011)

MarkB said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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! 


Imaro said:


> 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!).


Imaro said:


> "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.



The Shaman said:


> 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.


The Shaman said:


> 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.


The Shaman said:


> 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 Shaman said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> 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:

they go the wrong way/get lost
they go an inefficient way/route congestion
they go a good way
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 (Nov 9, 2011)

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 (Nov 10, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> 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...



Jhaelen said:


> 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)
> ...




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? 




Jhaelen said:


> 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?




Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.



Jhaelen said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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. 



Jhaelen said:


> 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 (Nov 10, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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.







Jhaelen said:


> 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 (Nov 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Nov 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> 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.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 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.



I'm not assuming either thing. I'm simply stating what I take to be ideal in RPG design, and indicating how one well-known mechanic which is at least somewhat relevant to the topic at hand aims at achieving that ideal.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


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



Well, what are _you_ arguing for?


Imaro said:


> 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.



I responded to a particular statement you made that I didn't agree with. I never even looked at the initial premise.


Imaro said:


> That doesn't seem like the unbridled freedom you seemed to be advocating.



Well, at least it offers more freedom than your approach 



The Shaman said:


> 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.



I agree!


The Shaman said:


> 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.



Yup. All of this is just theorizing anyway. I'm pretty sure you're just as experienced in recognizing when when your players are engaged and when they're starting to get bored as I am.


The Shaman said:


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



My point is simply that no map is ever perfect. It's quite likely that I'm using 'the wrong map' simply because I couldn't find any 'right' map.

I'd like to note that I didn't actually disagree with anything in your post that included the map. I just used your map as an example to make a point.

Cheers!

Edit: 

This thread's subject asks: Is giving players narrative control good, bad, or indifferent?
In my experience the answer is a resounding 'good.' I can see why it doesn't work for every DM or group, but for our group it works very well indeed.
I've not been DMing like this from the start, it's a style I improved and perfected over the years.

It's perfect for me as a DM because it means I don't have to spend as much time preparing for a scenario as I used to.
It also means that the risk of preparing something that never gets used is greatly reduced.

It's perfect for my players because it offers them more freedom than playing through a fixed scenario would give them.
They get to participate in developing the setting and shaping the storyline.

Right now I'm just a player and one of my former players is DMing. And I'm really glad he's adopted the same style to a large degree 
(currently he's preparing more than I used to but also once had to dismiss a large part because of our actions).
I've never had the feeling we were being railroaded into anything and his decisions don't feel arbitrary to me.
He's obviously making an effort to keep the game challenging and fun for everyone and so far he's succeeding.

What more could I wish for?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm not assuming either thing. I'm simply stating what I take to be ideal in RPG design, and indicating how one well-known mechanic which is at least somewhat relevant to the topic at hand aims at achieving that ideal.




My mistake. Now that I understand the purpose of your post I can agree that SC are pretty good at this... Though as this thread has highlighted for certain playstyles SC can be less than ideal in their implementation.

One example of this is that, in general, the SC don't take into consideration the skills of an NPC and thus aren't ideal for a simulationist style such as that suggested by Janx.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, what are _you_ arguing for?




That neither is good or bad but tools for a GM to use in order to create a satisfactory game for the players and GM's.

What I am arguing against is one-true-wayism and automatically discounting one particularly style automatically instead of keeping it in your toolbox and using it when it would create a better gaming experience. It is unnecessarily limiting for a GM to arbitrartily discount one style as opposed to another instead of using them as as the tools they are... at least IMO.



Jhaelen said:


> I responded to a particular statement you made that I didn't agree with. I never even looked at the initial premise.




I'll go back and check but I don't think I ever made a statement about turning the adventure into a pre-scripted railroad (that's been the assumption you've pushed and tried to assert since earlier in the discussion... one which has been continuously debunked as an extreme view and not a logical conclusion given the situation we've been discussing).



Jhaelen said:


> Well, at least it offers more freedom than your approach




Too bad "more freedom" is not equivalent to a "better" game.

Your style doesn't necessarily offer more freedom either, I use whichever style compliments the game at the time and I've seen no practical difference in the results of... "I shut down certain options in the moment" vs. "I shut down certain options ahead of time.". Both close off options on the decision of thwe GM. Whether either style offers more freedom or not is a function of the particular DM and his own rulings and/or prep. 




Jhaelen said:


> Edit:
> 
> This thread's subject asks: Is giving players narrative control good, bad, or indifferent?
> In my experience the answer is a resounding 'good.' I can see why it doesn't work for every DM or group, but for our group it works very well indeed.
> ...




Dude whatever works for you... I do find it contradictory that you on one hand recognize the style is not universally good yet continue to argue it is better in an objective sense... but whatever, to each his own.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Nov 10, 2011)

I think I may have the answer, and it's fairly simple (not short to explain, but simple).


I don't usually say or think that, but in this case I think I might. I've only read up until page 11, btw, so this might have been addressed somewhere already...but I'm pulling from a quote on either page 3 or 4:



> I don't agree that it "warps reality". If I give an undefined value definition, that isn't a warping but rather a definition of reality.




The dozens of examples and parsings and defining and re-defining and clarifying of terms from page 3 or 4 through 11 (and likely to this point) all dance around this.



Let's start with the value being defined. In such a case, if the player changes it, they are warping reality. If the distance on a map is 20 miles, the distance is 20 miles.

If the value is undefined, the player _might_ influence it. Are there elves in the marketplace? The DM doesn't know and hasn't defined the value (e.g. this is an elven village or this is a village that is xenophobic about elves) then there needs to be a determination.


Now, the solution:
We are talking about two play style variations, but with a third division in one of these styles.

Style 1: The world "exists". The players do not change defined values. If the value is undefined it is determined not by "it's good to say yes to players" but by what makes sense, perhaps including die rolls to determine. In this style, there is exactly the same chance of an elf being in that marketplace whether the players asked or not. They (and the dm) wouldn't have known about it if it had not been explored, but the CHANCE is the same. In this case the players do have narrative _impact_ (they determine that there might be an elf in the _story_), but not narrative _control_ (they don't influence the chance for the elf to be in the _marketplace_). This is the style I believe @JamesonCourage 's group uses (as does my own when sandboxing but not when playing adventure paths).

Style 2a: The world doesn't "exist". The story and adventure are paramount. Defined values (the map says 20 miles) remain defined. However, when players get inventive with the story by asking for additional details (is there an elf in the marketplace) _the DM leans toward saying yes_. In this case, players have narrative control (it is contingent on the dm allowing that control, but they do have it). There is a greater chance of the elf being there because they asked and because the dm is handing over some of the story to them. The more likely the DM is to say yes, the more control the players have (and the greater chance that the elf will conveniently be there). They cannot explore an "existant" world in the same manner as style 1, because they have the power to impact the reality of that world. This style is, I believe, the most common style, and the one put forth in the "say yes" or "say yes, but" articles by WotC.

Style 2b: The world doesn't "exist". The story and adventure are paramount. HOWEVER defined values do not remain defined. This can be as simple as "the adventure was supposed to take place in the town to the east, but since the players went west, it's going to happen there, the players don't know the difference". It can also be more extreme of a retcon wherein the story is more exciting if the map is only 10 miles, so it becomes so.


To sum up:
There is something gained (potential story directions) and something else lost (potential world reality) when the world conforms to player controlled narrative. (If there is always conveniently a chandelier to swing on, or a torch to grab off of the wall, or a loose cobblestone right when you need it, it can be great adventure, but feels less real.)


A final thought. This also can be an issue with DM controlled narrative on the fly. If a dm decides, "It would be cool if there was an elf in the market, because player x could benefit." it can rob the players of the feeling of reality as well.

I think the sticking point of this discussion is that people are concerned about DM tyrrany, railroading, and other loaded terms. In reality, that's not what the conversation (as I understand it) is about. The conversation seems to actually be about whether cool stuff happens because "it would be cool if" or if cool stuff happens organically, and if so, more rare (and potentially more cool when it does, because it was cool because it wasn't given that extra nudge from any source outside the game to BE cool).


The discussion, while ostensibly about player control of the narrative seems to be much more about the focus of the experience of the game: is the narrative defined by the story or by an attempt for reality?

Either way is fine, but they are different styles.

As always, play what you like.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I do find it contradictory that you on one hand recognize the style is not universally good yet continue to argue it is better in an objective sense... but whatever, to each his own.



I agree that there can be issue with narrative control. Way upthread LostSoul linked to this blog which discusses some of them - the main issue is the "Czege principle" - that RPGing is unsatisfactory if the same participant is responsible both for framing the challenges, and for resolving them.

But I can also see [MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION]'s point. I've seen many posts and threads with complaints about railroading GMs, GMs who interefere or veto elements of PC backstory, etc. I've not seen very many that complain about the game turning into insipid conch-passing. So while the latter is a genuine risk, I think for many groups it's not a very serious risk. Especially when player narrative control is filtered through a GM (which it will be, in a traditional game) and is filtered via the mechanics (eg BW-style Wise checks, like the Streetwise check to find the shortcut), I don't think too much damage is likely to be done.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree that there can be issue with narrative control. Way upthread LostSoul linked to this blog which discusses some of them - the main issue is the "Czege principle" - that RPGing is unsatisfactory if the same participant is responsible both for framing the challenges, and for resolving them.
> 
> But I can also see @Jhaelen 's point. I've seen many posts and threads with complaints about railroading GMs, GMs who interefere or veto elements of PC backstory, etc. I've not seen very many that complain about the game turning into insipid conch-passing. So while the latter is a genuine risk, I think for many groups it's not a very serious risk. Especially when player narrative control is filtered through a GM (which it will be, in a traditional game) and is filtered via the mechanics (eg BW-style Wise checks, like the Streetwise check to find the shortcut), I don't think too much damage is likely to be done.




That's why earlier I stated that I enjoyed this style of play much more in games with actual mechanics for it than I do in games where the GM's "arbitrary" judgement decides who has the right and who doesn't have the right to exert narrative control...which in all honesty can lead to it's own type of particular railroading where only the ideas that lead to the GM's "cool" story are accepted.  I think perhaps this is a less blatant and obvious railroad than most others and may go unnoticed most of the time.  However it is still railroading.


----------



## Janx (Nov 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> That's why earlier I stated that I enjoyed this style of play much more in games with actual mechanics for it than I do in games where the GM's "arbitrary" judgement decides who has the right and who doesn't have the right to exert narrative control...which in all honesty can lead to it's own type of particular railroading where only the ideas that lead to the GM's "cool" story are accepted.  I think perhaps this is a less blatant and obvious railroad than most others and may go unnoticed most of the time.  However it is still railroading.




I have a theory that a GM is more likely to railroad when he has an outcome written down or held strongly in his mind.

The written down part being easier to prove, and I suspect psychologically compels the GM.

If I just have a dungeon map, and the stats for a bunch of monsters.  I may feel free to deploy them and move them around (and actually beginner DMs often make the mistake of leaving the monsters in place as written by this same behavior).

Anyway, I suspect a DM who does not write specific events and outcomes down will tend to be more flexible and less likely to railroad than a GM who does. Somebody should sponsor a study on it.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2011)

Janx said:


> I have a theory that a GM is more likely to railroad when he has an outcome written down or held strongly in his mind.
> 
> The written down part being easier to prove, and I suspect psychologically compels the GM.
> 
> ...




I disagree... I think the railroading will be more obvious by a DM who writes things down, because there is physical proof to reference.  But I think a DM can just as strongly have an outcome in mind and rule to push things in-game to conform with that idea when nothing is written down.  The problem is that it's much harder to recognize and prove when it isn't written down than when it is.  In the end I believe this is much more of a DM characteristic and choice than it is dependant upon his style of prep.  Of course ultimately this is all just theory anyway.


----------



## Janx (Nov 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... I think the railroading will be more obvious by a DM who writes things down, because there is physical proof to reference.  But I think a DM can just as strongly have an outcome in mind and rule to push things in-game to conform with that idea when nothing is written down.  The problem is that it's much harder to recognize and prove when it isn't written down than when it is.  In the end I believe this is much more of a DM characteristic and choice than it is dependant upon his style of prep.  Of course ultimately this is all just theory anyway.




Sure, it's just a theory.  But the written word seems to have power.

newbie GMs are known for foolishly running every monster on the dungeon map exactly where they were written.  Room 1a has 2 kobolds.  Room 2 has a Flumph.  Room 3 has 3 orcs.  And the GM doesn;t deviate or have the monsters regroup.  The monsters literally sit in their room and wait.

I suspect that wandering monster tables may have originated as a means to add variability to the dungeon and mask that behavior to leave things as written, not as common sense might dictate.

A GM who doesn't write down much about planned events, etc, tends to already have an open mind with fewer expectations of outcome.  They have notes about stats and places, but plan to wing it on what happens next.

True, they could force something, and nobody could prove it.  But they have a leg up psychologically over the over-noted DM.

Also, worth noting, a study was done where subjects had to write a paper about a position they opposed.  Statistically, they found that the subjects opinion had changed to favor what the position they wrote about. (no, I don't have a link, but I read about it online, so it must be true).

My theory certainly drove my advice to you on "don't write down that the NPC took the best route."  Because I feel it's risky.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2011)

Janx said:


> Sure, it's just a theory. But the written word seems to have power.
> 
> newbie GMs are known for foolishly running every monster on the dungeon map exactly where they were written. Room 1a has 2 kobolds. Room 2 has a Flumph. Room 3 has 3 orcs. And the GM doesn;t deviate or have the monsters regroup. The monsters literally sit in their room and wait.
> 
> ...




I could accept this if only there weren't just as many, or more, DM's who buy an adventure or even a campaign setting (full of words) and have no issues or problems modifying, changing, discarding and adding whatever they want.  One would think, according to your theory, that the power of all those words (plus the fact that you paid money for said words) would dissuade almost any DM from changing things and yet most of the problems one sees as far as canon lawyers are concerned point to players... go figure.

Like I said I think it has much more to do with the DM than the type of prep work they do.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 10, 2011)

Janx said:


> I have a theory that a GM is more likely to railroad when he has an outcome written down or held strongly in his mind. . . . Anyway, I suspect a DM who does not write specific events and outcomes down will tend to be more flexible and less likely to railroad than a GM who does.



In my campaigns, I plan situations, not plots.

Typically that means I have a place, I have characters, I have a conflict, and I have motivations; what I don't have is an expected or desired outcome beyond presenting the players and their characters with choices to make.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I've not seen very many that complain about the game turning into insipid conch-passing.



Can someone please drop an XP [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for me for "insipid conch-passing." 


pemerton said:


> So while the latter is a genuine risk, I think for many groups it's not a very serious risk. Especially when player narrative control is filtered through a GM (which it will be, in a traditional game) and is filtered via the mechanics (eg BW-style Wise checks, like the Streetwise check to find the shortcut), I don't think too much damage is likely to be done.



I think that may reflect some selection bias; people who are likely to enjoy 'conch-passing games' aren't likely to complain, while those with no interest don't complain because they play something else.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 10, 2011)

Note, I've only read the OP, not the rest of the thread.

Pertaining to all the GMs in our gaming group (we have 3), as a policy we almost never give players narrative control, though on rare occassions it has happened.

Regarding your first example - if the player is asking if he'd know a shortcut based on his experience in the city, and the GM looking at his map seeing that the NPC in question is taking a direct route to where he is going, one of two things will happen.

1. Either the player thinks he knows the destination and is wrong (I would ask the player where he his character thinks the NPC is going, and if he answers the wrong place, I wouldn't tell him so) - then I would let him attempt a short cut, leading him to the location that is not the destination of the NPC... or.

2. If the Player is correct on the presumed destination of the NPC, I would correct the player in saying, based on your knowledge of the city and knowing where the NPC is heading, you KNOW that following him is the quickest route and that there is no short cut.

The problem with giving players narrative control is that they generally don't do it fairly. One of my players consistently guilty of this often tries to bring in his own realworld knowledge of metallurgy (and other things), as some kind of information that his character knows as well. Then tries to use this knowledge to metagame to a specific result.

I usually know if a given character should have such esoteric knowledge based on the known background of the character. If I think his character wouldn't have this knowledge, I just say "No, your character doesn't know this." Otherwise I limit what the character should know, based on what the player is trying to suggest the character knows.

I've never really had luck giving players narrative control, and for most of our players this isn't a problem. The issue just doesn't come up often.


----------



## innerdude (Nov 10, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> In my campaigns, I plan situations, not plots.
> 
> Typically that means I have a place, I have characters, I have a conflict, and I have motivations; what I don't have is an expected or desired outcome beyond presenting the players and their characters with choices to make.




Somebody XP Shaman for me for this ^^^^^^^^

Particularly the part about _motivations_. 

This is the heart of creating compelling narrative for a campaign, without railroading. The PCs are free to follow any and all "hooks" they want, within or (to a certain limit) without the plot structure. 

There's no predetermined outcome. If they defeat the BBEG in 6 sessions instead of the 12 you had planned, so be it. If they all die, so be it. If one of them dies heroically, while the rest achieve glory, so be it. Watching players do interesting things is one of the best parts of GM-ing. 

What they don't control is the inevitable follow-up consequences when other vested parties (NPC allies and enemies) react to what they're doing. 

When major events happen in real life, people don't sit around idle. Figuring how, and in what manner, and the level of response NPCs take is one of the other best parts of being a GM.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree that there can be issue with narrative control. Way upthread LostSoul linked to this blog which discusses some of them - the main issue is the "Czege principle" - that RPGing is unsatisfactory if the same participant is responsible both for framing the challenges, and for resolving them.



Thanks for pointing out this article - I hadn't noticed the link before.

After reading the article what I'm finding is that I apparently didn't have a clue what 'narrative control' actually means 

In our games there's no 'narration sharing' as described in the article. If I understand it correctly, as a DM I never actually give up my 'background authority'. What I'm doing is best described by using the following paragraph from the article as a starting point:


> the GM not only should prepare a dungeon ahead of time for the game, *but he is also allowed to amend and expand on his preparatory work during play* on the premise that his task is to present the game world as fully as necessary for the players: there is no ambiguity about who gets to decide what is inside a treasure chest: unless somebody changed its contents during play, the GM refers to his notes *or imagination* and decides what should be in the chest.



I bolded the interesting bits.
When I'm preparing a dungeon, I only prepare a bare skeleton, amending and expanding as much as possible during play. But how I amend and expand on these bare bones is guided by my players' actions and what they seem to be most interested in.

The following example is also interesting:


> Now and then he gets proactive about introducing various methodologies into his gaming, which often ends up with him asking his D&D players what sort of monsters they would like to meet *in the next encounter*.



I have been asking that question, too. Except I ask it before starting a campaign and sometimes in between adventures. And naturally, I don't always grant the players' wishes 

(as an aside: In 4e I've also used item wishlists. But just because an item is on a list doesn't mean, they'll ever find it. Instead it's just a way to find out what kind of items they're interested in and pick something similar when a good opportunity presents itself, i.e. when they encounter an enemy that seems likely to use something like it).

The following paragraph is close to what I've been doing:


> Somebody at Story Games suggested in relation to 3:16 (don’t remember who, it’s not really important) that a great GM technique would be to leave the greater purpose and nature of the high command of the space army undefined so the players could make this decision when and if their characters find it out.



Now, the important difference here is that my players wouldn't get to (consciously) decide about the nature of the high command. Instead, when preparing for the session I think about parameters that must be met and kinds of action that would lead to the high command having purpose A, B, or C. During play parameters or purposes I didn't think of may be added because of my players' ideas or actions.

In a way this is an extension of the idea that is the basis for the '(Expedition to) Castle Ravenloft' adventure module's 'Fortune Deck'. In case you haven't heard of it:
There's a certain point in the adventure when the pcs get a Fortune Reading that is supposed to be played out using a set of cards. Each of the cards that are drawn in this reading defines a certain aspect of the adventure, e.g. where certain artifacts can be found, at what locations certain rituals have to be performed, etc.
The module (or at least its 3e version) also doesn't define what Strahd's (the BBEG) goals and motives are. Instead it presents several options.

Now my twist is simply that I don't decide on a goal right away and don't determine randomly where the key mcguffins or locations are. Instead I leave it open as long as possible to take my players' interests into account.

What I don't get about [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s replies: Why is it a bad thing to make a background decision during play as opposed to during preparation?

Take the following example:
Say, I prepare a dungeon featuring two opposing factions, like a clan of orcs and a band of hob-goblins. Now during preparation I decide that the orcs (being chaotic evil and all) would never form an alliance with the pcs, while the hob-goblins could become (temporary) allies, if the pcs succeed in a skill challenge featuring skills A, B, and C.

If I understand Imaro's position correctly, that's perfectly fine.

Now why is it suddenly a bad thing if I don't decide right away that the orcs could never become allies? And why is it bad if I decide during play, that skill D could also be used in the skill challenge because the player has a great idea and describes his pc's actions convincingly?

How can this not lead to the players having more options (and thus freedom)?

And what I find utterly mind-boggling:
How can it be railroading if I decide during play that the pcs can actually convince the orcs to become their allies because of brilliant roleplaying and lucky dice rolls?


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 10, 2011)

In response to the OP, I am mostly against the idea of giving narrative control to the players though if they demonstrate that their characters would have knowledge as the example, I would conceed that if it doesn't derail the adventure at hand.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> What I don't get about @Imaro 's replies: Why is it a bad thing to make a background decision during play as opposed to during preparation?




I never claimed this, what I stated was that neither is superior to the other and both should be tools the GM uses to make a better game. I mean how many times do I have to type this into replies to your posts before you stop mischarecterizing my position? 



Jhaelen said:


> Take the following example:
> Say, I prepare a dungeon featuring two opposing factions, like a clan of orcs and a band of hob-goblins. Now during preparation I decide that the orcs (being chaotic evil and all) would never form an alliance with the pcs, while the hob-goblins could become (temporary) allies, if the pcs succeed in a skill challenge featuring skills A, B, and C.
> 
> If I understand Imaro's position correctly, that's perfectly fine.




So far so good... With an addendum... you have claimed previously that in making this one decision the GM is now railroading... I have argued he is not as it does not determine what the outcome of interactions between them will be...only what one facet of the interaction is. 



Jhaelen said:


> Now why is it suddenly a bad thing if I don't decide right away that the orcs could never become allies? And why is it bad if I decide during play, that skill D could also be used in the skill challenge because the player has a great idea and describes his pc's actions convincingly?




Where did I claim this? Seriuously, when have I throughout this entire conversation stated that one approach is "good" and the other is "bad"? I haven't... I have in fact argued against you making that claim... please don't mis-state my stance after I've posted it numerous times in this thread.



Jhaelen said:


> How can this not lead to the players having more options (and thus freedom)?




It only (definitely) leads to this if the DM is totally and absolutely neutral (which is virtually impossible) in assesing what ideas are cool or should be instituted and what Ideas aren't cool and shouldn't be instituted. As an example, if I am a GM who prefers a more gritty feel to my games as opposed to a high fanatsy feel I am going to (even if subconsciously) probably favor things that fit my preferences in aesthetics when it comes to deciding on the fly narrative... that doesn't mean this is what my players want and if not, then  my decisions are probably alot more restrictive than freedom granting for them. As I argued earlier a DM can be just as railroading on the fly as he can with prepared notes and nothing you've presented shows otherwise. 



Jhaelen said:


> And what I find utterly mind-boggling:
> How can it be railroading if I decide during play that the pcs can actually convince the orcs to become their allies because of brilliant roleplaying and lucky dice rolls?




Did you decide that because it leads to the outcome you as DM want? If you did, regardless of what traipings you threw on top of it... isn't that what railroading is?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> 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.




Swimming?  Jumping really far?  Grabbing a small boat and paddling across the river?  There's three ways off the top of my head that I can get a faster route.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I think that may reflect some selection bias; people who are likely to enjoy 'conch-passing games' aren't likely to complain, while those with no interest don't complain because they play something else.



Agreed. But for some reason those who don't like railroading GMs, or who want something other than classic Gygaxian play, seem to come online and complain about it rather than go and find something else!

My view is that there is still a mainstream/alternative distinction of approaches here, and that while that endures, following Jhaelen's advice will probably not cause too much trouble for those who try it, given their likely mainstream starting point.



The Shaman said:


> In my campaigns, I plan situations, not plots.
> 
> Typically that means I have a place, I have characters, I have a conflict, and I have motivations; what I don't have is an expected or desired outcome beyond presenting the players and their characters with choices to make.



It's practically hard scene framing!

More seriously - in setting up your situations, how much regard to you pay to the particular concerns/interests of your players as manifested through their PCs? I get the impression from your posts that you mostly have regard to genre considerations and leave it to the players to seek out their own situations, but sometimes (I'm guessing) you thrust situations upon them. In those cases, do you exercise GM control on the spot, or do you rely on your random tables and other prior prep?



Jhaelen said:


> as a DM I never actually give up my 'background authority'.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



All interesting stuff.

I use wishlists pretty expressly, but at least in my game I don't think this falls foul of the Czege principle, because gaining items isn't part of the challenge. I treat them as part of PC building (which I think is the default implication of 4e, despite its misleading labelling of treasure as "rewards).

I will also introduce elements into the story at the request/initiation of the PCs.When this is in the context of action resolution, I will makes it part of the skill check. So finding/obtaining the thing in question itself becomes part of resolving the challenge.

Outside the context of action resolution (eg if the PCs have just met some NPCs, and one makes the sign of his secret society to see if any members of it are among the NPCs) I use GM fiat. (4e doesn't really have anything analogous to BW's Circle or Relationships rules). So it becomes part of my framing of the situation, as GM. I think this is where [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s issues become most pressing - the worry (as I understand it) is that the GM will feel pressured to incorporate player suggestions into the framing in such a way as to amount to an "I win" button. I rely on my sense of genre, fairness and coolness to regulate this. In practice I don't think it's a problem, but I could imagine that a player who was used to BW-style Wises and Circles might find it too fiat-y.

When it comes to the backstory itself, my approach is too be more fluid than written notes, but more prepared than a literal "no myth" approach. I tend to follow this quote from Paul Czege, although I think a bit more light-heartedly than him (the quote starts with a quote of someone else, whose suggestion about "most games" being railroads I think is aimed primarily at White Wolf or Adventure Path style play):

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​
. . . although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . . when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.​
The second-last sentence makes at least one significant difference from how The Shaman does things - according to what I've quote above, NPC motivations are core to The Shaman's definition of a situation. Whereas I shape the details of the backstory, including NPC personalities and motivations, as part of the process of action resolution in order to keep the pressure up to the players.

EDIT: Sometimes on these boards I see this sort of "fluid backstory" described as a form of illusionism. I don't think that it is. (At least, not necessarily.) For example, in my game if the PCs want to persuade an NPC to do something, and then the players have their PC engage in a skill challenge and win, the PC is persuaded. So the plot is shaped by the choices of the players as expressed through the actions of their PCs. That is not illusionism.

But the reasons whereby the NPC is persuaded, and the dramatic implications of persuading him/her, won't be known until the scene actually plays out, because it's only in the course of resolving the scene that the backstory that contributes to these things will become a fixed part of the fiction. (Of course, the dramatic implciations will be a consequence not only of this backstory, but of the choices the players make and the actions their PCs take. And I'll be shaping the backstory in the course of resolution in order to try and push the players to make interesting choices!)

TL;DR - just because it's not sandbox-style exploration of a pre-given world, doesn't mean that it's illusionism!


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Swimming?



Slower than walking and pulls you downstream past the Louvre.







Hussar said:


> Jumping really far?



No one in the setting has the legs to jump from one side of the Seine to the other. Even on horseback.







Hussar said:


> Grabbing a small boat and paddling across the river?



Slower than running or jogging and probably walking as well, unless you're a sculling champion with a racing shell.







Hussar said:


> There's three ways off the top of my head that I can get a faster route.



And they are all options that the rules of the game regarding movement indicate are slower than simply crossing Pont-Neuf on foot.

Fact of the setting.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But for some reason those who don't like railroading GMs, or who want something other than classic Gygaxian play, seem to come online and complain about it rather than go and find something else!



Indeed. I think it would be hard to argue against the notion that, with respect to the diversity of options available to gamers, this is anything but a golden age of roleplaying games.







pemerton said:


> More seriously - in setting up your situations, how much regard to you pay to the particular concerns/interests of your players as manifested through their PCs? I get the impression from your posts that you mostly have regard to genre considerations and leave it to the players to seek out their own situations, but sometimes (I'm guessing) you thrust situations upon them.



Sure, that's part of running a reactive sandbox setting. The adventurers brush up against the webs, and the spiders come out to see who's ringing the dinner bell.







pemerton said:


> In those cases, do you exercise GM control on the spot, or do you rely on your random tables and other prior prep?



Usually it's a combination of prior prep and randomization - the Mythic emulator makes that easier and more interesting than ever - but occasionally situations just lend themselves to a logical response.

Frex, a couple of the adventurers visited a tavern. They searched for a guy who looked like he was someone of importance - I hadn't planned anyone, so I rolled on a random encounter table to get a sense of who that might be, and it came up as a Master Gambler. I quickly adlibbed that he was an _ex officio_ leader among the dockhands on the quays of Grenoble as well as an accomplished gambler. One of the adventurers, the doctor, decided to sidle up behind him, to observe him for a bit before approaching him. This meant the doctor was now looking over the shoulder of a card player and I decided, without recourse to the dice, that this provoked a reaction from the dockhands at the table, and two of them positioned themselves on either side of the doctor.

I then rolled a reaction roll to gauge the reaction by the dockhands and the gambler: the dockhands came up "unreceptive," while the gambler was "interested." One of the dockhands growled at the doctor, "Are you getting a good enough view of the cards?" and the doctor replied that he was trying to learn more about playing the game. The gambler then motioned him to a chair and said, "Okay, show us what you learned."

So, a mix of random rolls and 'if _x_, then _y_.'


----------



## pemerton (Nov 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> So, a mix of random rolls and 'if _x_, then _y_.'



Good stuff.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Where did I claim this? Seriuously, when have I throughout this entire conversation stated that one approach is "good" and the other is "bad"? I haven't... I have in fact argued against you making that claim... please don't mis-state my stance after I've posted it numerous times in this thread.



All right, after carefully rereading your posts it seems that you haven't.

Apparently, I only got that impression because whenever I was pointing out something about my preferred approach that I consider better than the alternative you argued that it actually wasn't.

But you've been quite careful not to call either approach universally good or bad, so my apologies.


Imaro said:


> Did you decide that because it leads to the outcome you as DM want? If you did, regardless of what traipings you threw on top of it... isn't that what railroading is?



Okay, back to a bit of hyperbole:

Since my desired outcome as a DM is that I want everyone to have a challenging but fun session and like to reward cool ideas and exceptional dice rolls, yes, I admit it, I must have been railroading my players all the time 

(Slightly) more seriously: I always assumed that for railroading to happen you first have to lay down rails, otherwise it's just 'roading', isn't it?

Back to my example dungeon with the two factions: If my desired outcome was that the pcs allied with the orcs, why should I make it more difficult for them than allying with the hob-goblins? And why should I allow for them to ally with the hob-goblins at all?

Somewhat frighteningly, something The Shaman posted above describes quite accurately what I've been trying to illustrate with my example:







			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Typically that means I have a place, I have characters, I have a conflict, and I have motivations; what I don't have is an expected or desired outcome beyond presenting the players and their characters with choices to make.



Now, to be honest, since I know my players quite well, I'm usually good at guessing how they'll react given certain choices. But sometimes they surprise me - and that's something I like - a lot!

So, when preparing for a session, I concentrate on outcomes I consider likely. For my example that means, I'd first make sure to be prepared for them not trying to ally with either faction.
The next most likely outcome would be that they try to ally with the hob-goblins and the least likely that they try to ally with the orcs.

So, I'd have combat stat-blocks ready for both factions, and I've thought about parameters that have to be met for either of the factions to become allies.

Actually, there's a fourth option that's even less likely: They might try to ally with both factions, effectively working to achieve a truce (or even more insidious: to convince both sides to engage in an all-out confrontation against each other!).

And that's an example for an option that would in my opinion trivialize the adventure, so the best outcome they could hope for is for the truce (or the all-out battle) to last for a very short while, i.e. not long enough for them to achieve their objective and get away again in complete safety.

So, while I don't have a desired outcome at least there is an outcome I _don't_ desire: I don't want them to succeed without having to engage in at least a single combat encounter! 

Note, that if we were playing a different rpg system than D&D, I wouldn't mind even that. 
But D&D without combat is like stale beer - not something I care about!

I'm sure there's even more options I haven't listed above, but apart from them avoiding the whole adventure setup I trust in my ability to wing it, supported by everything I've prepared for this and previous sessions.


----------



## Janx (Nov 11, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Actually, there's a fourth option that's even less likely: They might try to ally with both factions, effectively working to achieve a truce (or even more insidious: to convince both sides to engage in an all-out confrontation against each other!).
> 
> And that's an example for an option that would in my opinion trivialize the adventure, so the best outcome they could hope for is for the truce (or the all-out battle) to last for a very short while, i.e. not long enough for them to achieve their objective and get away again in complete safety.
> 
> ...




Something to ponder, Imaro also concieved in his talk about the Chase, that he did not want a shortcut to bypass the challenge.

Effectively, both of you have an interest in having some content not be bypassable or trivialized such that one idea makes the whole problem simple to solve (thus cutting 4 hours of content to 1 hour?).

I think it might be a mistake to want to thwart that path if it is valid.  But it may be wise to make that path interesting if the players go down it. 

So, don't say "there's no shortcut" if you think that'll kill all the fun stuff you had planned.  Don't say the orcs and hobs won't go to war against each other or sign a truce if the PCs try.

If you didn't think of that possibility during planning, do the applicable skill checks, spice it up if you can, but if they make it, let it work.  Because the players outsmarted the GM and they should not be punished for it.  (or, if you can adlib, do what the next paragraph says)

If you do think of the possibility, then plan some content to make that path interesting as well.  Maybe some extra skill checks or drama or complications.  Not with the intent to make it fail, but to provide some challenge and fun if things go that way.

That means, during the planning of a chase, if you think "they might want to take a shortcut", then look at the map, draw in the shortcut path, and plan some challenges along that route.
If you think they might try to broker a full peace or redirect both sides against each other and watch, make some notes about the outcome of such a possibility.  maybe the 2 tribes unify too well and actually go on a bigger campaign of war.  Maybe it takes a lot more diplomacy and treachery drama as both sides are "trying" to broker a deal with the PCs and a neutral party, and internal factions to both tribes are trying to sabotage it (go hunt down a ST:TNG episode, I'm sure there's a few along this theme).

The "I Win" button should lead to the next Challenge.  Not fretting that they just bypassed all your notes and it was too easy.  There's lots of things I do at work that others struggle to solve that I find the "I Win" button to solve.  My bosses don't go shutting that down to make it harder for me.  They give me a cookie and hand me the next problem to solve.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 12, 2011)

Janx said:


> Effectively, both of you have an interest in having some content not be bypassable or trivialized such that one idea makes the whole problem simple to solve (thus cutting 4 hours of content to 1 hour?).



Yup. In our group individual sessions last a long time. We meet on average only once a month, but when we meet it's 10 - 12 hours of gameplay! If I'd let them get away bypassing a whole session's content, there wouldn't be a lot left to do, except a few 'random' encounters and preparing for the next major event in the campaign.


Janx said:


> So, don't say "there's no shortcut" if you think that'll kill all the fun stuff you had planned.  Don't say the orcs and hobs won't go to war against each other or sign a truce if the PCs try.



That isn't what I meant: I would let it work, but only for a while. E.g. they'd bypass several smaller scale encounters in exchange for a single larger scale encounter. They'll still save time, probably have an easier time, all things considered, and are likely to gain a greater reward.


Janx said:


> If you think they might try to broker a full peace or redirect both sides against each other and watch, make some notes about the outcome of such a possibility.  maybe the 2 tribes unify too well and actually go on a bigger campaign of war.



Two things:
First, I don't like to prepare too much for outcomes I consider too unlikely (as mentioned, knowing my players, they're much more likely to not ally with anyone).
The whole point of leaving key things open when preparing is to be able to adjust the adventure during play to deal with the unexpected (see below).

Second: The presented scenario isn't fleshed out. It's a hypothetical scenario I presented to illustrate my point. In a real scenario there'd be an important goal to be achieved by entering the dungeon or a crucial mcguffin to be gained and I'd have a better idea about the situation as a whole.

In a campaign, every action of the pcs will have consequences. So, yes, if they managed to achieve a lasting truce between the two factions it would likely change the balance of power in the area. Likewise, if the factions destroy themselves, they'll leave a power void that is likely to be filled by a third faction.
But that is outside the scope of this isolated scenario.

What I consider one of the big advantages of my approach is that I'm usually able to control very well, how far we'll get in a session. Here's where the aspect comes in that The Shaman would hate so much if he could conjure such a strong feeling over something like gaming 

Say, the above scenario was about finding a McGuffin that is hidden somewhere in the dungeon. What I might do is the following:
When preparing for the session I'd decide on a couple of likely places where it might be found:
- the hob-goblin's treasure chamber
- the orcs' treasure chamber
- a secret chamber unknown to either faction

Now depending on what my players do, I'll decide during play where it actually is. E.g. if they ally with the hob-goblins, I might decide, it's in the orcs' treasure chamber, and vice-versa.
If I should find that I have misjudged and they have a too easy time, I might do it the other way around. If they find the secret chamber too early, instead of the McGuffin they might find a potent magic item instead. Alternatively, they actually do find it, but are then hunted by one or both factions.

So, these decisions are influenced by
- the pcs' actions
- the challenges so far
- the time left to play

Ideally, using this approach I end up having sessions that always have a good mix of challenges, combat and otherwise, and come to a satisfying conclusion (or less often end in a cliffhanger).
So maybe this is my invisible railroad: Trying to reach a railway station after each session?! 

In over seven years, this has worked in all but one or two sessions, which is considerably better than with any other DMing approach I've tried.

It may not be for everyone, but it's ideal for groups in a similar situation as ours.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 12, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Slower than walking and pulls you downstream past the Louvre.No one in the setting has the legs to jump from one side of the Seine to the other. Even on horseback.Slower than running or jogging and probably walking as well, unless you're a sculling champion with a racing shell.And they are all options that the rules of the game regarding movement indicate are slower than simply crossing Pont-Neuf on foot.
> 
> Fact of the setting.




My comments were meant to be facetious but, I'd point out that it depends on where people are going.  I haven't actually looked at the map, so, I wasn't being all that serious.  

But, while it's true that you have only certain points where you can cross the river on foot, I would think that rowing across should be faster than someone on foot.  Particuarlarly if you're trying to catch someone who is on the other side of the river already.  

It's really going to depend on the situation.

My point actually was, that while there may be fixed points where you can cross the river, presuming that those are always the fastest, and actually dictating that those can only be the fastest way ever isn't how I DM.

Then again, I have no problems with playing fairly fast and loose with setting.  It's just not that important to me.  Pacing of the situation, actually getting on with the action, and that sort of thing is far more important to me than really trying to work out how far someone would drift down the river while swimming across it.  Just not my cup of tea.


----------

