Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Warbringer]

I agree, but I think we have to recognise that for a lot of players it seems that that sort of separation of character from player action is not desirable.

Oh I agree, plenty of players don't like retcon in this way, and I like your suggestion to [MENTION=7507]mike[/MENTION].

To be honest, in most of my games in the last 5 years we had no idea where the rogue was most of the time. In a different campaign a player actually played a pair of brothers, of which only one of who was around the party at any time (the idea was nicked from The Prestige I believe)

 

[Warbringer]

This is a play-style issue, which is why I disagree with it. If it works for you: great. But it doesn't work for me.

I completely understand, and its darn difficult to create situations like these without "magic", flashbacks and flash forwards, or very creative playing... All of which I have no objection too .

Of course, it can also be run as a split party and role/roll play the whole scenario that leads to "Surprise!It's me"

 

[Mike Eagling]

The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions are not character actions. The rest is narrative justification (" I cast a spell", "I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking", "I realized that the kings guard owed me a huge favor and I called it in")

Actually, I just realised this deserves some more attention!

You say "the player decides a narrative that has happened". This is the difference, apparently, in our play styles.

For me, in D&D (other games may be different), players don't decide a narrative that has happened, they decide the narrative that is happening.

"I cast a spell" results in a spell being cast.

"I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking" well, no, you didn't.

 

[Warbringer]

Well there is definitely a galloping gourmet moment where we pull a " and here is one i prepared earlier" ...

But the action is "I appear behind the king, dagger to his back, disguised as the page " as the narrative is happening; the justification is i slipped off earlier; the game mechanic I'm using a slot/token/ability that allows me to do it.

For me, no different that "I cast a magic missile at the darkness" ; justification is a spell I prepared earlier ; game mechanic I use a spell slot/charge etc to pay for the narrative action.

And I know this is my preferred style

 

[Balesir]

A few thoughts have occured to me following the recent discussion that I think tie back to the original thread topic (hooray!)

It seems to me that, with the traditional D&D aesthetic, the problem facing "mundane" characters is what I'll call, for want of a better term, "relevant event density". I'll try to explain it, but please bear with me as it's a concept forming in my mind as I type...

Take the infiltration scenario as an example. Success at the task - which I take to be "get into a role in the castle that will get you close to the king at the critical time" - requires a plethora of steps. Many of them are semi-stochastic (they rely on luck, but any one of a range of potantial lucky breaks will do) and many are information-based (discovering the social hierarchies and webs of influence among the castle staff). As a result, the task requires a very large number of discrete steps, some of which may be "try once only - fail = total failure" while others are "get multiple tries, each try uses time and carries a small risk of total failure".

Running a solo sequence with the rogue player may be something that some groups will be happy to do; some may even think of this as an ideal roleplaying style. But, for other groups, this just leaves several players excluded and bored, so the rogue simply never gets to do the "solo infiltration" schtick*.

Looking at what the issue is, here, though, it seems to me to be tied to the number of discrete actions/events required, since it is these, not the amount of elapsed "game time" that determines how much real time it takes to achieve something in the game. Compare the rogues extended sequence of sneaking, listening, disguising, bluffing and so on with the spellcaster's "I cast spell Y". There are two obvious ways to combat this:

1) Make the spellcasters take more actions to cast a spell. Maybe a spell has several stages and sections, each of which needs to be completed, in order to cast it. Maybe the magical currents that eddy and flow around the game world need to be aligned just right (possibly requiring casting from just such-and-such a position) for the spell to work. Or...

2) Make it so that convoluted sequences of "mundane" action can be specified and adjudicated in just one step, just as spellcasting (in D&D) can be.

Here is a sketch of what (2) might look like:

- The acting character formulates a plan, stating what they intend to achieve and the steps they intend to take to achieve it.

- The game system lays out, for each of several "difficulties" of task, a roll or sequence of rolls or requirements needed for the task (e.g. a task might require a DC XX roll, or Y DC ZZ rolls with Y being reduced for training in relevant skills, minimum movement rates, vision abilities (like LLV) and so on).

- The DM decides what the difficulty is, and the player(s) between them (including the DM) decide what skills/attributes may apply. Each skill/attribute might raise the DC by an average amount, but the acting player doesn't have to accept skills or attributes the character is poor in. For example, in the infiltration example, the system might look like this:

i) The task is difficult and has DC 18.

ii) A background including disguise and a disguise kit each reduce the DC by 2.

iii) Stealth (DEX), bluff (CHA), perception (WIS) and streetwise (WIS) are all relevant and can be used to boost the roll, but each one used increases the DC by 2 (by making the plan more complex - although the the rule system or the DM might rule bluff and streetwise mandatory for this plan).

iv) The character has good DEX and CHA, but poor WIS, so the player decides on a plan using stealth, bluff and streetwise (mandatory).

v) Optional skills/attributes might add effects to the outcome, perhaps. For example, using perception might add one or more situational pieces of information to a successful outcome (e.g. the rogue gets into position, and also knows that several extra guards are behind _that_ door), thus making their use attractive even if they increase the DC somewhat.

The negotiation/decision over the precise structure of the test should really not be too complex; the system for formulating the trial should therefore be quite specific and precise. Maybe, as someone else suggested, the mechanism should work via saving throws, rather than "success rolls", but it makes little real difference in the end. Basically, the idea is to make "mundane" plans of any sort a "one shot deal", similar to spells, rather than a "well, we could go off and solo that for half an hour..."


* The way that infiltration, etc. is excluded/discouraged might be problematic (I have known DMs make rogues make multiple "succeed or get caught" skill checks for this sort of thing, which just makes it so difficult as to be useless), but I regard that as a separate and not neccessarily related problem.

 

[chaochou]

Here are a couple of moves from Dungeon World:

Through Death's Eyes (Fighter)
When you go into battle, roll + WIS. On a 10+ name someone who will live and someone who will die. On a 7-9 name someone who will live or someone who will die. Name only NPCs, not player characters. The GM will make it happen if even remotely possible. On a 6- you forsee your own death and take -1 ongoing for the battle.

Wealth and Taste (Thief)
When you make a show of flashing around your most valuable possession, choose someone present. They will do anything they can to obtain your item or one like it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're incorrect on multiple points, here.

First, my previous statements were just that: statements. They weren't directed at you personally, but at the points you were presenting. To say that an argument is "disingenuous" is - as you noted previously, but mysteriously seem to have forgotten - to say that it is "insincere." Since sincerity means "genuine" or "real," that's simply another way of saying that the argument you're presenting is not valid.

Quick question: Is English your first language? Because there are a lot of subtle distinctions in English that are not obvious - and you might have tangled yourself up in one of those. If we look at the Meriam Webster, insincere is another way of saying hypocritical. Sincere on the other hand has, as a first definition, honest.

Being sincere is not about whether the statement is actually true. It is about whether someone genuinely believes the statement they are making. If someone genuinely believes that the earth is flat then they are being sincere when they say the earth is flat despite the fact that it is not true. If someone on the other hand believes that the earth is flat and claims that it is round because they will be given money for that that is insincere - it is dishonest and the opposite of what they believe. This is still true despite the fact that the earth is not flat.

(Note: According to The American Heritage Dictionary there is some confusion about the meaning of disingenuous and the word may be shifting although your claimed usage is not in line with any standard possibility - but once you accept insincere as an accurate summary you are removing all doubt.)

Since the essence of having a debate is pointing out that someone else's point does not hold to be true (unlike your own), I'm honestly not sure what you're complaining about.

That you are accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of not believing what he is saying. Which is entirely different from making a mistake.

In other words, I'm saying your point lacks validity (e.g. "truth") as a quality. How you're seeing that as a personal attack is beyond me.

That insincere doesn't mean that and disingenuous doesn't mean that. Both mean that the person that is being accused of such doesn't believe what they are saying. There is a huge distinction between lying (someone knows something to be false and is making things up anyway) and mistaken (someone believes something to be true that isn't). You are not, as you think, accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of being mistaken. You are accusing him of knowingly lying. And accusing someone of knowingly lying is a personal attack.

I'm not. If, however, you're now saying you misunderstood my previous statements, and so can stop accusing me of making personal accusations, then I'll thank you in turn.

If you are accusing him of being insincere or disingenuous then either you are accusing him of knowingly lying, in which case you are making a personal attack, or you are not saying what you think you are saying, in which case you owe him an apology. Which is it?

 

[sheadunne]

I think for the "Surprise, It's Me" ability we're looking for a mechanic that is currently not in the game. I'm trying to think of a wizard spell that might do something like it, but I'm not coming up with anything.

The mechanic is one that summarizes individual play when a party member leaves the group. There are plenty of times when this particular mechanic could be used and I think it would primarily be used by Rogue/Thief characters, who are the ones who more often than other characters, disappears to either scout, infiltrate, or investigate, but it could apply to any character who temporarily leaves the group to engage in some other activity (a ranger who scouts ahead, a cleric who leaves to visit the church, etc).

Ability
State Intention (I'm going to infiltrate the castle and take the place of a server to appear behind the king)
Roll Dice (Mechanic)
Result (you appear in your desired location, you appear near your desired location, you appear in a prison cell, you appear near your desired location but everyone knows it's you, etc)

I think the dice roll happens not at the beginning of the action, but when the party member returns to the rest of the party. If the rogue goes to scout ahead, he doesn't roll the dice to determine success until he would normally return to the group.

Using existing mechanics of D&D the mechanic would need to be a Skill Check (Which Check) or a Saving Throw (Who Makes It) or Automatic (Are there preexisting conditions that determine success).

 

[Manbearcat]

@Balesir Something like 1e combat rounds; abstract time interval of conflict resolution into one roll. My guess is that while 1e combat rounds gets a pass due to legacy (which is odd considering how central the combat round is to play), your abstract conflict resolution system (although it sounds compelling and functional) would not get the same pass from the same crowd.

Magic as conduit for outrageous expansion of locus of control for spellcasters (while forbidding mechanics that work to expand mundane players', and their characters', locus of control) is the issue here. "Because magic" allows the players of spellcasters to deploy resources and dictate the fiction from Director Stance or Author Stance by proxy of Author Stance due to this expansion of locus control. We're into the same positions as ever (and in a surreal, stepford fashion). One side of the issue demands 1 or more of the below 3:
- As much serial accounting for the mundane passage of time (and its knock-on effects) as possible rather than hard (or gross if you prefer it) abstraction of time and its effects.

- As much game mechanics as physics/process simulator as possible and all of the granular interactions that come with that.

- 1st person, Actor Stance as the only allowable player perspective at the table; eg no dictating any of the fiction external to the precise, well-accounted-for locus of control of your character (no Director or Author stance).

Fighter says: "I can chop down that tree or climb it."

Magic Guy says: "What tree?" or "I am that tree" or "I just leapt that tree in a single bound and am hovering above it." All "because magic."

Those two guys cannot dream of competing, or being relevant with respect to one another, in the arena of non-combat, conflict resolution if the 3 above must be observed with perfect fealty. You'd have a stronger argument if you asserted that mail courtiers in the 1700s could be a relevant, money-making enterprise while competing with modern day UPS or Fedex.

The cannot...not in a High Magic, High Fantasy system such as D&D where resource scheduling, and inherent balance, is all over the map (pre 4e). You can fully contrive situations to impose sharing the spotlight but the two parties won't be sharing in a way the characters will and means. They'll be sharing due to GM-forced, contrived situations that either bind spellcasters' unbeleivably disproportionate locus of control or make the task not worth the spellcaster player's time/effort to deploy a spell because there is absolutely no way for those two parties to dictate outcomes with the same breadth and potency...that is within the strictures of the above.

 

[Alzrius]

Quick question: Is English your first language? Because there are a lot of subtle distinctions in English that are not obvious - and you might have tangled yourself up in one of those. If we look at the Meriam Webster, insincere is another way of saying hypocritical. Sincere on the other hand has, as a first definition, honest.

Quick question in return: are you familiar with the concept of irony? I ask because you're displaying it here in your lack of command of the English language.

For one thing, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which you failed to cite. If you check its definition of disingenuous (Second Edition, volume four, page 784), you'll find that it doesn't break it down into numerical listings (dispelling the notion that one can somehow "rank" the definitions of this word), noting that not only does it list "insincere" as part of the definition, but that it can be applied to "persons and their actions." Emphasis mine here.

Now, if we look at "sincere" itself (OED 2nd edition, volume fifteen, page 508), we'll see that it does have definitions broken down by numbers, and that 1b is "true, veracious; correct, exact." Emphasis mine again.

In other words, before you question someone else's command of a language, make sure you're up on your own.

Being sincere is not about whether the statement is actually true. It is about whether someone genuinely believes the statement they are making.

Already proven false; see above.

If someone genuinely believes that the earth is flat then they are being sincere when they say the earth is flat despite the fact that it is not true. If someone on the other hand believes that the earth is flat and claims that it is round because they will be given money for that that is insincere - it is dishonest and the opposite of what they believe. This is still true despite the fact that the earth is not flat.

One can judge the sincerity of a claim in and of itself, since as I've already demonstrated, sincerity can be in reference to its correctness.

(Note: According to The American Heritage Dictionary there is some confusion about the meaning of disingenuous and the word may be shifting although your claimed usage is not in line with any standard possibility - but once you accept insincere as an accurate summary you are removing all doubt.

Demonstrably false, unless you don't think that the OED is "any standard" of English.

That you are accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of not believing what he is saying. Which is entirely different from making a mistake.

Again, demonstrably false.

That insincere doesn't mean that and disingenuous doesn't mean that. Both mean that the person that is being accused of such doesn't believe what they are saying. There is a huge distinction between lying (someone knows something to be false and is making things up anyway) and mistaken (someone believes something to be true that isn't). You are not, as you think, accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of being mistaken. You are accusing him of knowingly lying. And accusing someone of knowingly lying is a personal attack.

As I've already demonstrated multiple times, I never once accused pemerton of lying - a statement can be disingenuous because it lacks sincerity, which means that it lacks truth, as a quality of the statement itself. For you to suggest otherwise means that you are, at best, tragically mistaken. At worst, it means that you're deliberately misinterpreting my previous statements in order to manufacture outrage over a non-existent accusation.

I will, however, do you the benefit of presuming that you're simply misguided, rather than having ill intent. I won't even insist that you apologize, which is a good deal more gracious than you've been thus far.

If you are accusing him of being insincere or disingenuous then either you are accusing him of knowingly lying, in which case you are making a personal attack, or you are not saying what you think you are saying, in which case you owe him an apology. Which is it?

Neither, as I've clearly shown. Hopefully, you've learned from your mistakes here, and can let this sordid tangent go.