Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Balesir]

But what do you do when the player-supplied narration conflict with the world-building?

- I grab a flowerpot from the windowsill and drop it on his head.
- But this is an ascetic monastery without decorations -they dont have flowerpots.
- But I paid a point to change the narrative, so now I want them to have flowerpots!

You just make it a meditational focus, a cleaning bucket or a ritual bell instead of a flowerpot. Fluff changes are trivial. If you had a monestary where they were utterly fanatical about locking up absolutely every loose item in case of thieves you might have more of a problem, but that would seem a trifle forced, to me.

- I taunt the Orcs to attack me.
- Sigh, I had hoped to keep it secret a little more, but the truth is that these Orcs are automata, fighting under a strict program, so they dont respond to taunts...
- I don't care, my power says they attack me, so they must.

You just say the Taunt fails and allow a Sense Motive check to discern exactly why. You have a reason the Taunt fails (I'm presuming these "automata" are immune to "Taunt") and you communicate that there is some reason (that the players may be able to find out) by allowing an (open) Sense Motive check.

This stuff is really quite easy to manage, once you get used to it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's what the thread is about - options to give players of non-spellcasters greater narrative space options. It's pretty obvious that those are going to have to inlcude metagame mechanics

I think the point here (particularly if you go back and read the OP) is how to expand those options without using metagame mechanics.

given that narrative space options (i) involve changing the narrative space in ways that extend beyond ingame causal capacities triggered by in-character RP with linear time sequences

Not really. There is plenty of talk in both threads about how martial classes often don't have abilities that one could expect them to have based on those kind of considerations. Skills, psychological abilities, active defense mechanics, et cetera.

There is plenty of room for all characters to exert influence without metagame abilities.

(ii) non-spellcasters are, within the fiction, limited to their in-character causal capacities.

So are spellcasters. Their causal capacities are simply different.

 

[pemerton]

But what do you do when the player-supplied narration conflict with the world-building?

- I grab a flowerpot from the windowsill and drop it on his head.
- But this is an ascetic monastery without decorations -they dont have flowerpots.
- But I paid a point to change the narrative, so now I want them to have flowerpots!

The declared backstory can't contradict the known backstory. That's a pretty standard rule in any game. It applies to the GM just as much as the players! Eg the river can't be 10' wide today and 10 yards wide tomorrow without some ingame causal explanation (eg a lot of rain upstream).

- I taunt the Orcs to attack me.
- Sigh, I had hoped to keep it secret a little more, but the truth is that these Orcs are automata, fighting under a strict program, so they dont respond to taunts...
- I don't care, my power says they attack me, so they must.

Do the orcs have an immunity? Then the GM has to declare that. Maybe the players can work out from that that they're automata.

Does the player declare CaGI as a taunt, and the automata rush in? They must be programmed to keep their automaton status a secret!

 

[N'raac]

My dream would be to give the fighter stances. Some of those stances could affect the narrative. Take the 4e fighter mark ability, turn it into a stance, and boost it up a little and it would make a good ability. Call it, intimidation stance. If the same fighter also had another stance, he would need to choose which he would activate at any time (ie which fighting style he was using against his enemies). If we switch to another stance, the "marked" enemies wouldn't be marked anymore and he'd have another effect going on. It seemed like a much smoother and easier system than say 4e encounter powers or the micro management of feats.

But that's all really stuff for another thread I think. A thread on where to house martial narrative options.

Again, I don't see that as a "narrative control option", but a different ability for the fighter which he uses to resolve challenges within the narrative.

But what do you do when the player-supplied narration conflict with the world-building?

- I grab a flowerpot from the windowsill and drop it on his head.
- But this is an ascetic monastery without decorations -they dont have flowerpots.
- But I paid a point to change the narrative, so now I want them to have flowerpots!

It can be a loose brick in the windowsill. You paid a point to have a small, heavy object you can drop down on the climbing target. Of course, once we introduce the ability of the player to unilaterally alter the scenery, we have some questions to answer:

- is it infallible (I spend a point and get a flowerpot) or fallible (I spend a point and get to roll for the flowerpot to exist)?

- is it fully player controlled, or can the GM intervene (for example, can the GM spend a "No Point" and cancel out that flowerpot; can he state that there are no such objects in the room based on the backstory - it's a well maintained prison cell, so no decorations, loose bricks, etc.)

- how far does it extend? A flower pot? No, I want a cauldron of boiling oil to dump on that guy, so there is a bubbling deep fryer sitting right by the windowsill. Or a Thompson SMG, fully loaded. Or a pipe bomb.

- I taunt the Orcs to attack me.
- Sigh, I had hoped to keep it secret a little more, but the truth is that these Orcs are automata, fighting under a strict program, so they dont respond to taunts...
- I don't care, my power says they attack me, so they must.

This is an issue with defined powers - if I paid for a power that makes opponents attack me, then it either specifies automata are not affected or they are affected. No GM override, no matter how logical. Now, if the answer is that this power does not affect automata, my answer is that the orcs attack someone else. The player says "I used my Taunt, they should attack me", and I reply that I am aware of the taunt - the Orc still attacks the wizard. In my game, the player would start considering why his power didn't work. But that also requires some faith that the GM does not simply declare powers don't work by fiat ("this Orc is special and can't be taunted because he is immune to Jedi Mind Tricks for no reason other than I still want him to lay some hurt on the wizard").

Just like a 16 Spellcraft check on a potion failing to ID it did not result in cries of GM override, but the conclusion that the potion must carry a L2 or higher spell, since that would ID a L1 spell.

To my mind, narrative control would allow the fighter to somehow dictate that these are not automata after all, or that they have mysteriously developed some form of rudimentary sentience so, despite the immunity of automatons in general, taunt affects these ones. This would then become part of the narrative, changing the evolving storyline. This would force a GM to be much more improv-focused, as the backstory and assumptions he based the scenario around can, and will, be altered by the PC's as they exert their control over the narrative.

 

[Tuft]

It can be a loose brick in the windowsill. You paid a point to have a small, heavy object you can drop down on the climbing target. Of course, once we introduce the ability of the player to unilaterally alter the scenery, we have some questions to answer:

- is it infallible (I spend a point and get a flowerpot) or fallible (I spend a point and get to roll for the flowerpot to exist)?

- is it fully player controlled, or can the GM intervene (for example, can the GM spend a "No Point" and cancel out that flowerpot; can he state that there are no such objects in the room based on the backstory - it's a well maintained prison cell, so no decorations, loose bricks, etc.)

- how far does it extend? A flower pot? No, I want a cauldron of boiling oil to dump on that guy, so there is a bubbling deep fryer sitting right by the windowsill. Or a Thompson SMG, fully loaded. Or a pipe bomb.

From previous examples, I gathered that *asking* the DM for "what small hard object is there lying around that I can drop on an opponents head?" is *not* narrative control, while positing that specifically a flowerpot is there *is* narrative control.

The flowerpot may have been a trivial example, but its the principle I am asking for here. The cauldron of oil and the SMG were more drastic, especially the latter in a fantasy campaign...

The three questions you ask: fallible, vetoable, and extent are basically what I also want to know about.

To my mind, narrative control would allow the fighter to somehow dictate that these are not automata after all, or that they have mysteriously developed some form of rudimentary sentience so, despite the immunity of automatons in general, taunt affects these ones. This would then become part of the narrative, changing the evolving storyline. This would force a GM to be much more improv-focused, as the backstory and assumptions he based the scenario around can, and will, be altered by the PC's as they exert their control over the narrative.

Yes, to me changing that the orcs never were automata would gel with what I've previously been told about Narrative control.

This to me sounds like an extremely sandboxed game. I do like myself a good improvisational game as a GM, but I'd have a hard time if one of the pillars of the background story got torn out under me (and I know one of my players who'd have *serious* trouble with things being redefined on the fly!). It would be hard to introduce a story of automata infiltrating the world if the fighters taunt would make them *not-automata* in every combat encounter...

 

[Tuft]

The declared backstory can't contradict the known backstory. That's a pretty standard rule in any game. It applies to the GM just as much as the players! Eg the river can't be 10' wide today and 10 yards wide tomorrow without some ingame causal explanation (eg a lot of rain upstream).

This is making me confused. To me, all examples of non-magical narritive control *have* been about changing the backstory. When you posit that there is a flowerpot on the windowsill, the flowerpot *has always been there* - i.e. you change the past to change the present. When you posit that the you can sneak past the guards because they've been out all night carousing and are passed out with a hangover, you not only change the backstory, but also affect how disciplined said guards appear and their general mien and reputation.

Do the orcs have an immunity? Then the GM has to declare that. Maybe the players can work out from that that they're automata.

Does the player declare CaGI as a taunt, and the automata rush in? They must be programmed to keep their automaton status a secret!

As far as I recall from our trial 4E campaign, there was no way to declare immunity to CaGI, other than rule zero...

 

[Tuft]

Not really. There is plenty of talk in both threads about how martial classes often don't have abilities that one could expect them to have based on those kind of considerations. Skills, psychological abilities, active defense mechanics, et cetera.

There is plenty of room for all characters to exert influence without metagame abilities.

So are spellcasters. Their causal capacities are simply different.

For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.

 

[Alzrius]

For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.

Well, that can be easily added back in.

 

[Mike Eagling]

For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.

Rules for morale certainly exist in 1e. They seem to have dropped off the radar somewhere between then and Pathfinder.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.

In your experience, they don't. To be fair, I suspect this is probably very typical.

It is also worth noting that some might say that hit points cover morale.

However, I think that the notion of representing psychological factors with explicit mechanics is an interesting and underexplored idea. Real people are sometimes overcome with emotions to the extent that they lose their ability to act voluntarily, or even perform some actions involuntarily; D&D characters aren't often in this position. Heroes of Battle forayed into this area a little bit, but I haven't seen much since then.

And yes, noted as others quickly posted that older versions of D&D did have morale and there are some takes on it that aren't in current core rules but are out there.