Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Starfox]

Such abilities can mot easily enter the game in three forms; as stunts, as feats, or as class abilities.

As stunts, anyone can do them, given they have the skills to make it believable. We discussed that earlier.

As feats/class abilities, only those who have taken the feat can do this reliably, or at least the feat facilitates the action greatly. This can be great for some kinds of abilities, but severely limits the "stuint space" available to everyone. Leadership is an example of such a feat, as is the rogue's Trapfinding and the ranger's Hide in Plain Sight.

A good method of working on this (that I've used making my homebrew) is to first think up what what any skilled hero should reasonably be able to do - this is the stunt. The you can invent feats/class abilities that enhances the ability further.

Example: The infiltration ability discussed earlier.

DC: Highest Spot among opposition.

Time: One hour.

Roll: Pick four of the following skills. Climb, Stealth, Disguise, Knowledge (local), Profession (valet or cook) (etc, etc). Test each skill against the the DC. One success lets you carry out the infiltration. Each failed roll adds a complication (yadda yadda).

Failure: You are discovered as a freeboter and forcibly ejected out of the castle, taking 2d6 damage in the process.


Feat: Infiltrator

You can do an infiltration stunt in 15 minutes (instead of the normal hour) and get a +4 bonus on all related die rolls.


Edit: This is more an example of an outline that a concrete suggestion for how this is to work in detail.

the "Mother may I"

Only now I understood this expression - I read it as "Mother May" and wondered if this was a literary reference to a a character named May. ^^

 

[Alzrius]

I still feel there is a thread of "if the DM gives permission" then the " player can have so e narrative control". If that is the case, there has to be a reliable exchange mechanic so the players know they can act when they want to (otherwise it is the "Mother may I" condition)

I personally disagree. As Starfox noted, this goes against the traditional aspect of D&D, which is that a player's agency in the game world is restricted to their character, and no further. Their character can attempt anything, to be sure, but the results are dependent on the GM. We want martial characters to have more narrative abilities, but I wonder if that's different than the players having them.

Personally, I'm more in favor of having greater narrative capabilities for the players come at the expense (if it has to be at the expense of something, which I'm not sure it does) of the dice, rather than the GM. I suspect that that's the difference between the aforementioned "authorial stance" and the "actor stance" - the former moves into an area usually managed by the GM, whereas the latter moves into an area usually managed by the dice.

 

[sheadunne]

I personally disagree. As Starfox noted, this goes against the traditional aspect of D&D, which is that a player's agency in the game world is restricted to their character, and no further. Their character can attempt anything, to be sure, but the results are dependent on the GM. We want martial characters to have more narrative abilities, but I wonder if that's different than the players having them.

Personally, I'm more in favor of having greater narrative capabilities for the players come at the expense (if it has to be at the expense of something, which I'm not sure it does) of the dice, rather than the GM. I suspect that that's the difference between the aforementioned "authorial stance" and the "actor stance" - the former moves into an area usually managed by the GM, whereas the latter moves into an area usually managed by the dice.

D&D does have them, they just tend to be restricted to spells. Adding them to martials is a change to martial classes, not to D&D. The question is whether they should be added to martials in the same mechanical mess that they are in spells, or should they be added in a different way (which may indicate that the way they are handled in spells needs to change to match, although D&D has always had a mess of different systems, so that's not against the tradition to have them both function differently).

I would like to see dice as the arbitrator of narrative influence. I think that's the only way to successful implement it in D&D, without changing the game in dramatic ways. But there are spells that affect the narrative without dice rolls. Should these change to match?

 

[Alzrius]

D&D does have them, they just tend to be restricted to spells.

Just to be clear, by "them" you mean narrative capabilities that aren't restricted to the actions of the player's character? Because in that case, spells aren't an exception to that - it's the spellcasting character that actuates the spell; the effect affects more people than just the character, but it's still clearly based on the undertakings of the character themselves.

Contrast that with playing a "Lancelot shows up" card, which is divorced utterly from the character's own abilities. That's what I meant by separating the player's agency from the character's abilities.

 

[N'raac]

Contrast that with playing a "Lancelot shows up" card, which is divorced utterly from the character's own abilities. That's what I meant by separating the player's agency from the character's abilities.

[Devil's Advocate]What if the "Lancelot Shows Up" ability is a manifestation of the PC being extremely lucky, for reasons he may not fully understand? If we refuse to allow that aspect of "luck", do we also prohibit the "Luck Feats" from Complete Scoundrel? Is it somehow made more tolerable if I define his good fortune being the fact he has Celestial Beings watching out for him due to a distant Celestial ancestor (just like this might explain a Sorcerer or Favoured Soul's abilities)?[/Devil's Advocate]

I don't know the answer, but given many clerical spells draw in divine intercession, why can't a character who gets divine intercession without requesting it by means of spells, or even knowing that is why he gets these benefits, exist?

 

[Mike Eagling]

[Devil's Advocate]...[/Devil's Advocate]

I don't know the answer, but given many clerical spells draw in divine intercession, why can't a character who gets divine intercession without requesting it by means of spells, or even knowing that is why he gets these benefits, exist?

Personally I don't see that as being much different to a spell. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but it does seem to fall into the "because magic" category.

 

[Warbringer]

I personally disagree. As Starfox noted, this goes against the traditional aspect of D&D, which is that a player's agency in the game world is restricted to their character, and no further.

Yeah, but the whole point of this discussion, I thought, were methods of giving players agency in character. That does not mean restricting them to class descriptors, but opening up new methods of creating them.

There is a reason that feats, skill checks, and stunts do not grant the feeling of narrative control (outside of spellcasters) pre 4e.

 

[Warbringer]

I would like to see dice as the arbitrator of narrative influence. I think that's the only way to successful implement it in D&D, without changing the game in dramatic ways. But there are spells that affect the narrative without dice rolls. Should these change to match?

I think ultimately dice rolling becomes a method of getting as high a bonus as possible, then we end up with situations that the DC is so high only certain characters can even try, turning in into a de facto "fail" for anyone else.. (And for me, a 1 in 20 chance is not fun, nor smart scenario design, unless you have a great fail forward mechanic)

 

[Mike Eagling]

That must be why I didn't assert this.

Just to clarify, my comment was purely in regard to the stated interpretation. It certainly wasn't intended as any kind of personal attack.

With hindsight I clearly could have expressed this point better.

 

[Alzrius]

[Devil's Advocate]What if the "Lancelot Shows Up" ability is a manifestation of the PC being extremely lucky, for reasons he may not fully understand? If we refuse to allow that aspect of "luck", do we also prohibit the "Luck Feats" from Complete Scoundrel? Is it somehow made more tolerable if I define his good fortune being the fact he has Celestial Beings watching out for him due to a distant Celestial ancestor (just like this might explain a Sorcerer or Favoured Soul's abilities)?[/Devil's Advocate]

I don't know the answer, but given many clerical spells draw in divine intercession, why can't a character who gets divine intercession without requesting it by means of spells, or even knowing that is why he gets these benefits, exist?

I'm not saying that such a manner of granting narrative control isn't workable, just that I personally don't find it desirable. It's entirely possible to have mechanical abilities that grant narrative agency happen for reasons that are - in the context of the game world - divorced from the character's abilities. I simply find them to be unfulfilling.

The reason I don't care for them is because they seem to portray the character as achieving success (in whatever narrative option he exercises) for reasons that have nothing to do with personal ability. For me, a heroic character is one with heroic abilities to successfully change a situation into one where victory can be achieved, rather than it simply happening for external reasons.

Now, I do have some latitude here - I have no problem with characters receiving something like a luck bonus to checks, as these are small enough mechanical bonuses that they need not have any conspicuous analogue in the context of the game world; characters do not "see" a bout of good luck happening when they do something like swing a sword or dodge a lightning bolt.

However, narrative options seem to me to be (very) conspicuous by their very nature. Doing something like convincing an enemy to stand down or circumventing a stone wall is an issue where a stroke of luck that solves the problem is going to be noticeable. Now, by itself, that's not really a problem - plenty of stories have such monumental strokes of good fortune happening.

The problem is that a role-playing game doesn't have the same type of narrative progression that stories do. Player-characters tend to spam their abilities over and over (if not each round, then still with some degree of regularity over a longer period of time). It's one thing to have a one-time stroke of good luck happen when Lancelot shows up to solve your problem. It's another thing when he shows up for the twelfth time to do so, because you get one "Lancelot shows up" card per game session, and so why not use it? Major strokes of good fortune that occur with some regular frequency strain the narrative.

Of course, as I said above, that's just my take on it. Unto itself, it works - I just don't care for the manner in which it does so.

Yeah, but the whole point of this discussion, I thought, were methods of giving players agency in character. That does not mean restricting them to class descriptors, but opening up new methods of creating them.

Strictly speaking, it doesn't mean either of those things. It means discussing different ways of doing so, both in their pros and their cons. I'm simply pointing out what I feel is a con for that particular idea.

There is a reason that feats, skill checks, and stunts do not grant the feeling of narrative control (outside of spellcasters) pre 4e.

That reason is "because they were written that way" - it has nothing to do with the inherent nature of feats, skill checks, and stunts.