Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Mike Eagling]

(Of course, if martial practices are allowed to retcon preparations and spells are not, they need to be balanced accordingly. But then no-one is suggesting martial practices would do things like wall of stone or teleport - they'd be more useful but still useful things like a skeleton key suited to a certain lock, a uniform to disguise yourself as a guard, or horses hidden for a convenient escape - things which you by old school would do in-game, but which today's faster game styles don't give time for. Such planning and forethouight can be replaced with martial practices.

This is my take on it, tough I realize it might annoy old-school players to no end.

I'm not sure this annoys my old-school sensibilities but it does still annoy me

It reminds me very much of Bill and Ted!

Actually, in all seriousness, I can see how it would work in Leverage and think it's a clever mechanic for that game.

One thing I did want to pick up on, however: the issue of wizard-y types out rogue-ing rogues was cited as an apparent problem with spell-caster disparity over in the warlord thread. As written, the examples cited above imply a fighter out rogue-ing a rogue, which by that rationale doesn't solve anything. The fighter's retcon abilities would have to be fighting abilities.

 

[Umbran]

Right, adventure design being the other way to come at the potential problem. That is, if you even agree there is a problem.

And there, you hit on a very real issue. Some folks find there to be a problem, and some don't. How many of each? We don't know, and we don't have the facility for the surveying that would tell us, and no, the folks on EN World don't give you a representative sample, as we are self-selected as game-analytical gearheads with a tendency to be critical and so many other things.

Fixing the problem in the rules fixes it for *everyone* - but if they didn't see a problem in the first place, you may well have introduced a new problem for those people. Unintended consequences happen.

There is also a basic issue that no set of mechanics will ever be flexible enough for RPG use, and also so solid that a bad GM can't flub them up for you. Every time you say, "add a mechanic to make it better" you are giving an opportunity for the GM to gloss over your new mechanical area, such that you're still irrelevant to a given scene.

Thus, I submit that education on adventure design (for the GM) and spotlight sharing (for everyone) should come *before* mechanical repairs.

 

[Kraydak]

It is worth noting that people have been trying to find narrative options for non-spellcasters in DnD for, um, decades, without any real success. That strongly suggests that adding narrative options for non-spellcasters is a non-starter.

As an alternative, allow me to suggest a return to the pre-3e idea that not everyone be competent at combat. Then the casters get to shine out of combat, the non-casters get to shine in combat, and, crucially, module designers are forced to play with a fuller palette. If everyone can fight, but only casters get to not-fight as well, you end up with very, very combat heavy adventures to avoid completely sidelining any Fighters in the party. If only Fighters can fight (with an assist from Rogues), then you'll end up with a few "forced" fights, and a whole bunch of non-combat or optional-combat encounters.

 

[Mike Eagling]

Thus, I submit that education on adventure design (for the GM) and spotlight sharing (for everyone) should come *before* mechanical repairs.

Perhaps this kind of information ought to be included in the "beginners' boxes"? I'm assuming they generally only contain a "lite" version of the rules and pretty knick-knacks--I've never bought one so don't know.

LotFP comes with a tutorial book containing an essay by James Raggi that apparently provides his opinion on how the game should be played. I've not read it yet so have no idea as to it's contents but it strikes me as the kind of thing that would be useful to new players of a game.

 

[NYC_DM]

Right on about the Complications / Hero Point system in Mutants & Masterminds. I use that GM's Fiat rule in other games because it does work well.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think breaking out the macro subtypes of narrative space options for mundane heroes and then filling them in is helpful to this endeavor. Starblazer Fate is a good place to look here. Martial Practices, Rituals, lots of powers and features embedded in Themes, Skill Powers, Skills being robust/broad packages has facilitated this in my 4e game. This is generally how I would categorize them:

- Create/Use Asset or Macgyver (eg Tangible tools, traps, equipment, vehicles, beasts etc to interact with to facilitate success or create complications for enemies)

- Harness/Use Resource or Tyrian/Varys (eg Informants, underworld contacts, credibility with a specific faction, reputation generally that aids by proxy)

- Enable Transition Scene or Expedite Travel/Movement (eg Reconnaissance, field experience, etc used to circumvent hazards while in dangerous territory)

- Espionage or Bond (eg Intelligence gathering techniques, infrastructure saboteur techniques, secret identities, and other general spy M.O.)

- Logistical Support (eg followers, minions, organizations that aid directly)

- Physical (Breaking stuff, lifting stuff, climbing stuff, acrobatic...ing stuff)

- Sherlock Holmes (Scholarship ,lore, science and otherworldly powers of deduction/extrapolation)

 

[Umbran]

It is worth noting that people have been trying to find narrative options for non-spellcasters in DnD for, um, decades, without any real success. That strongly suggests that adding narrative options for non-spellcasters is a non-starter.

To use a somewhat dramatic analogy: Folks were trying to build flying machines for centuries. That should have strongly suggested to the Wright Brothers that flying machines were a non-starter.

The mechanics I've been mentioning are all relatively new to RPGs. Which means that people are thinking up new stuff all the time! Why stop trying when there's always new things to try?

I also submit that no, folks were not trying to find "narrative options" for non-spellcasters for D&D for decades. Folks have been doing many things, but looking at it as "narrative options" is a pretty new concept. They have, instead, been trying to find ways for fighters to dominate combat more, and have skills outside combat, but those are only a couple of things one can do - folks may have been trying to improve the fighters, but they have had some metaphorical blinders on. As time goes on, and more games have more novel approaches, our palate of potential solutions to problems grows.

As an alternative, allow me to suggest a return to the pre-3e idea that not everyone be competent at combat.

Because, as we all know, in 1e and 2e magic users were never forces in combat! Fireballs and lightning bolts are sacred cows in the game because they are pretty, but they never had any real weight in a fight! I'm sorry, that was my sarcastic voice, and I should not have used it. But the point remains - your memory of pre-3e gaming does not match mine. Wizards in earlier editions had low hit points, but were often crucial to winning fights.

Then the casters get to shine out of combat, the non-casters get to shine in combat

If that's the way you have it, then players of casters are generally bored in combat, and players of non-casters are generally bored out of combat. Being bored stinks. Writing off a player for large sections of the game is probably not a desirable design goal.

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps this kind of information ought to be included in the "beginners' boxes"? I'm assuming they generally only contain a "lite" version of the rules and pretty knick-knacks--I've never bought one so don't know.

Well, some advice ought to be found in each variation of the game. But, my personal experience is thus: The issue at hand is an issue of characters who are built to do one thing really well - and then find that they don't have much to do when that one thing isn't applicable. Broadly speaking, the simpler the rules-set, the less specialized the characters is - so, the effect will be seen less in simpler versions of the game.

For example, skills systems have a trade off. In early versions of D&D, there was no real "skill system" as such. If a player wanted to pull off something, they'd ask the GM, who would likely say yes, or have them make an ability check -the common thing was "roll d20 or 3d6, and get under your stat to succeed". Anyone could try pretty much anything that sounded plausible. If you put in a skill system, it tells the players who can or cannot succeed, and if you don't have the skill, you usually won't try. With a skill system, you are guarded against a GM who says "no" too much, but your are prevented of taking advantage of a GM who would say, go ahead and try".

 

[Mike Eagling]

Well, some advice ought to be found in each variation of the game.

Indeed but my point was inexperienced new players might benefit from a greater emphasis being placed on this information, rather than it being "relegated" to supplemental volumes.

That seems to support your assertion that "education on adventure design (for the GM) and spotlight sharing (for everyone) should come *before* mechanical repairs."

Unless, of course you didn't actually mean that?

 

[Kraydak]

To use a somewhat dramatic analogy: Folks were trying to build flying machines for centuries. That should have strongly suggested to the Wright Brothers that flying machines were a non-starter.

The mechanics I've been mentioning are all relatively new to RPGs. Which means that people are thinking up new stuff all the time! Why stop trying when there's always new things to try?

And none of the "new mechanics" have actually made it mainstream. Further, as seen up-thread, they are often disliked.

I also submit that no, folks were not trying to find "narrative options" for non-spellcasters for D&D for decades. Folks have been doing many things, but looking at it as "narrative options" is a pretty new concept. They have, instead, been trying to find ways for fighters to dominate combat more, and have skills outside combat, but those are only a couple of things one can do - folks may have been trying to improve the fighters, but they have had some metaphorical blinders on. As time goes on, and more games have more novel approaches, our palate of potential solutions to problems grows.

You are welcome to try. I can't imagine it being anything but a waste of time, but hey, your time. On the other hand, focussing on giving Fighters narrative options (no success so far) blinds you to the possibility of explicitly not giving them narrative options, which has been historically decently successful.

Because, as we all know, in 1e and 2e magic users were never forces in combat! Fireballs and lightning bolts are sacred cows in the game because they are pretty, but they never had any real weight in a fight! I'm sorry, that was my sarcastic voice, and I should not have used it. But the point remains - your memory of pre-3e gaming does not match mine. Wizards in earlier editions had low hit points, but were often crucial to winning fights.

Kinda/sorta/not really. On one hand, you have 1/2e Clerics. A powerful class (not a heal bot! the lack of heals at spell levels 2 and 3, and the lack of Cure Wounds scaling saw to that), with a decent defense, but no offense to speak of. Then you have Wizards, with "amazing" offensive spells... that could be matched by a Fighter in a round or two. And the Wizard got actually just-about DnD Next numbers of spell slots. Wizards weren't helpless offensively (although Fireball and Lightning Bolt were both... difficult.. to deploy if played straight)... but were completely helpless defensively, thanks to not actually having any HP. A 1e/2e party that tried to engage in combat without a Fighter (or Fighter subclass) was bonkers. What Wizards *did* have was enough of an offensive punch to contribute on final boss fights.

If that's the way you have it, then players of casters are generally bored in combat, and players of non-casters are generally bored out of combat. Being bored stinks. Writing off a player for large sections of the game is probably not a desirable design goal.

Actually, it is a good design goal (as long as the write-off isn't total). What we got in 3e was lots of combat, which resulted in Casters taking lots of combat spells, which meant adventure designers upped the fight difficulties, which resulted in casters doing full burns, which resulted in the complete sidelining of Fighters, and the 5MWD. And boring modules, because the Casters could contribute (heck, dominate) combat, while the Fighters couldn't contribute there.

By having some characters be not-good at out-of-combat stuff and some characters not-good at combat, you (a) force module design to be more interesting (you'd see a lot less set-piece battles, and more plain "how do you get past this") and (b) make your whole game-balance problem much, much easier. It also forces players to play outside of their character's specialty, forcing creativity.