Warbringer
Explorer
Some do, some don't, but in general they have more scope to interact with the narrative; or at the very least more flexibility
Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters
Some do, some don't, but in general they have more scope to interact with the narrative; or at the very least more flexibility
Warbringer
Explorer
True, change unbalanced skill point allocation, cross-class requirements (ie full access) and the base gain model and it might work
There was any idea about feats and traits floated a while ago I like; basically what you're saying here.
For sure there are limitations, but they are less sever than no ability to change your narrative impact. That is a flexibility the "S" class gets
This is exactly what I'm talking about by "finality" in conflict resolution.
I did say what you attribute to me here.
But the way you paraphrased that is as follows:
I don't see the relationship between "the social skill must resolve a conflict once and for all" - ie finality in conflict resolution - and "one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for ilfe".
There are two obvious points of disconnect, both of which I hope are obvious if one keeps in mind the example of skill challenges, or Duel of Wits from BW, or social conflict from The Dying Earth RPG, or the infliction of mental and emotional stress or complications in MHRP, etc.
The first is that none of those systems uses "one successful Diplomacy check". Like the D&D combat system that I mentioned in my post, they are complex resolution systems in which the participants have the opportunity to alter the fiction (and hence shape the outcome) in the course of resolution.
The second is that "A resolving a conflict with B" does not entail that B is A's slave for life. All these systems involve, either overtly or as an inherent feature of their resolution, the setting of stakes - this informs both initial "credibility" tests on framing (ie some things are just impossible, whether for ingame reasons or metagame genre reasons), and also the details of the resolution (including but not limited to difficulty). For instance, persuading the bandit guard that s/he should let the PCs enter the bandit camp without raising the alarm is an instance of a social conflict which lends itself well to finality in resolution. It has nothing to do with anyone making the bandit guard a slave for life.
A third, less obvious point is that finality itself has a duration and work arounds. For instance, hit point damage in D&D can be healed. In MHRP there are rules for recovery from complications and stress. In BW there are rules for overcoming the result of a Duel of Wits. But the key thing about each of these is that they are not simply subject to GM fiat. The players know what they are - for instance, in MHRP a complication typically lasts until the end of the scene, and so the GM can't have the bandit guard raise the hue and cry until the infiltration scene is resolved. So the GM can frame the following scene as one in which the PCs are being pursued by the bandits, but at that point the PCs have already resolved their infilitration, and have got whatever they are going to get out of it.
You have missed a third way, which is in my view highly salient here. That is director stance, ie the authority to introduce new backstory outside the in-fiction "locus of control" enjoyed by the PC.
Here is an instance of backstory introduction by a player that is not director-stance at all: "When I was a kid I use to go fishing." It is not director stance because it does not deal with anything outside the "locus of control" of the PC (ie the PC, as a kid, was in a position to choose to go fishing). This would be controversial, I think, only if it contradicted already-established backstory or genre (eg the game is a Dark Sun game, or is a Greyhawk game in which we've already established that the PC grew up among the nomads of the Bright Desert).
Here is an instance of backstory introduction by a player that, in D&D, I think would normally be regarded as uncontroversial even though it takes place in director stance: "My guy was born in Saltmarsh and used to go fishing with his dad, who was a fisherman." This is director stance because the PC does not control where s/he was born, nor the occupation of his/her parents. Note that in RQ a player does not enjoy this degree of director stance (parental trade is rolled on a random table). And in D&D this can start to become controversial if (for instance) the player wants to stipulate that s/he was born in the royal palace to the ruler of all the land.
And now here is the sort of director stance that is used in the RPGs I'm aware of that give players of non-magical PCs serious narrative space options: "My guy sneaks up to the bandit guarding the gate, and when I'm pretty close I step out and say "Sshh! Don't say anything - I know all about the trouble your parents are in back home, and I can sort that out for them as long as you don't sound the alarm!" Btw, I'm using my [insert ability name here] - I recognise this guard as the child of [insert description of parents who live in PC's home town, and explanation of the trouble that they're in]."
Resolving this sort of director stance play has two dimensions - first there's establishing the truth of the player's desired specification of backstory, and then there's resolving the conflict (social conflict, in my example; but if the backstory is about the existence of a secret door into a palace, the conflict might not be social but exploratory) in which the player's PC wants to trade on that backstory. The first can be done via skill rolls (as in BW, via Wise checks or Circles checks) or via sheer stipulation based on a limited points resource (this is how MHRP does it, with the rules for Resource creation). The second then needs some sort of conflict resolution mechanic of the sort I've already mentionted upthread and in this post. In D&D it is almost certainly going to be dice-based, although [MENTION=14391]Warbringer[/MENTION] upthread has suggested the possibility of doing this in a points/slot-based way (eg at stage 1 I expend resources to make it true in the fiction that the bandit guard has the "aspect" worried about his parent's troubles; at stage 2 I expend resources to "compel" that aspect, establishing that because of those worries, and my promise to help resolve them, the guard will let me into the bandit camp without raising the alarm).
EDIT: A further complication with Stage 1 done via dice rolls is whether the resolution happens ingame, or purely at the metagame level. BW does a bit of both, but tends to favour the ingame approach: so when "my guy" approaches the bandit guard to bargain over the fate of the guard's parents, if the skill roll to establish the truth of the fiction is a failure, that means that the PC had a false belief. And tthe GM can therefore have the guard reply "Huh? With the money I'm making here I've already set my parents up for life - I guess you're working from out-of-date information! Hey, everyone, we've got intruders here!"
Last edited:
Starfox
Hero
[Anecdote]
In Maid, my character for some time had Luck as her highest attribute. As any stunt in Maid can be based of any attribute the GM agrees to, even in combat, this meant that her combat actions became stuff like "I dodge the falling tree, but he doesn't", stipulating a tree would suddenly fall on us. My character didn't really do much - she was just stupidly lucky (on the level of gods).
[/anecdote]
Another way to handle player control of the world is to like Maid - have a Luck attribute, that lets a player introduce a new plot element "by chance" by making a high enough Luck roll.
Player: I look for a secret door.
DM: Roll Perception. (The DM knows there is no such door there the roll would automatically fail)
Player: No, I want to roll Luck
DM: Eh... Hrm... Ok
Player: * Roll stupidly high on Luck
DM: You stumble into the wall... Click! apparently there is a trigger for a hidden door there! * Makes a note in the scenario
As GM of said Maid campaign, I must say that I *do* love when the players mess with my stuff this way. Some of the best sessions were when I had to throw out my notes completely, and run the whole thing with by the seats of my pants improvisation.
And [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] character has earned godlike levels of luck by years in that campaign.
Starfox
Hero
First, let me say I am cool with a player doing these kinds of stunts.
About "director stance", it is an interesting point. Not sure I see "director stance" as clear enough to stand on it's own tough. Instead I see cases of director stance falling under either author or actor stance. As for a PC digging out things of his own background... I consider that to be a part of that someone called the "Golden Box" earlier - the personal sphere that makes up the character's personality and background . It is stretching actor stance a bit (into method acting perhaps?) but I find it is still actor stance. It is not until the player tries to dictate the background of NPCs he meets that I feel that this becomes controversial - and slips over into author stance - even if just barely.
But yes, there is a grey area here, with different people drawing the line differently. So, if we define "director stance" as the grey space between actor and author stance, I can accept that, but did we gain any clarity by introducing this new term?
PS: Is your "Locus of Control" the same as my recently picked up "Golden Box"? I'm not really familiar with either term.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
That's probably the best way to handle this particular paradigm, as that helps to tie that sort of thing directly to the character, rather than the player. In this regard, it's like how some of the superheroes in contemporary comic books (whose names escape me at the moment) have the ability to consciously manipulate luck in their favor/against their enemies. A luck attribute isn't quite that explicit in the context of what's happening, but it's a larger step in that direction. It also helps to avoid the situation of relatively similar strokes of good fortune happening with regularity, to boot.
That said, it does have the problem of not just running at least somewhat counter to the "D&D tradition," but I wonder how much players would like it if the tone of the setting wasn't comedic in nature - something like this just seems to lend itself more to hijinks than heroism.
As I said eariler, I cleary interpreted your "finality" to be more "final" than you intended. I think "binding", rather than "final", might be a more appropriate term. Your successful use of Diplomacy (whatever mechanics we adopt for same, be they the present one skill roll &D model, or some more granular social combat system) does not make the target your loyal friend for life, come what may, but it does mean the immediate objective of your diplomacy attempt is successful, and not either vetoed as "out of character" or eliminated before the benefits are realized (ie the guard does not have second thoughts and raise the alarm as you enter the camp) by a change of heart that effectively renders the initial success irrelevant.
Adding to this, it also means that the abilities of the character (such as high interaction skills) have in game relevance. The GM cannot decide that, since the player did not make a convincing speech, neither did the player. The character's 17 roll + 13 bonus = 30 is determinative, and the player's lack of similar oratorical skills is irrelevant. The reverse also applies - a brilliant and impassioned speech by the player combined with a 3 on the d20 and a -1 for 8 CHA and no ranks in social skills may, for example, indicate that the PC stuttered and encountered a "say it, don't spray it" moment in his impassioned efforts to persuade the Earl to see things his way. The PC's get abilities dictated by the in-game resources spent on those resources, not the metagame player skills. I'm all for that - a 375 pound couch potato who has to stop for a break climbing the stairs can play a battle-hardened warrior or an agile acrobat, and the stuttering introvert should be just as able to play a smooth talking social butterly or a suave, persuasive diplomat.
Ahnehnois
First Post
If you're talking about flexibility over a period of time, I'd say yes. Between spell memorization (for your divine casters and wizards) and the ability to acquire scrolls and such. However, I don't think that's generally true at any one time. If you have to react to a situation and can't prepare over time, I'd say your rogues and some of the more versatile martial characters have more flexibility.
And that is and odd dynamic. Again, I'd look at spells as tricks. Whether your magical characters should have such a big swing based on how ready they are for a situation (or how lucky they are to have prepared for it) is an interesting question.
Manbearcat
Legend
Nagol, thanks for the post. Good stuff in there and I don't think we're in stark disagreement but would you be so kind, when you have a moment, as to break out number 1. I think it can be useful to the conversation that people are having and I might have some commentary. Maybe you could cite some systems (or even theoretical anecdotes) you have in mind. I don't want to comment here before I (erroneously) presume too much.
