Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[N'raac]

That said, feats like Goad and Antagonize (on the PF side) are still controversial because of their potential to overrule player control of his PC without the intervention of magic. Nearly as controversial as CaGI, in fact. So it's not just that CaGI was an unexpected big deal. Goad and similar feats simply are a big deal.

Emphasis added. If we want to add more options to non-magic using characters, then we need to accept that moe things can be accomplished without the use of magic. The player has lost control of his PC to a Taunt spell or to a Goad/Antagonize feat. Tough luck - the PC can't simply choose to control his emotions because the player, or the PC, wants him to. If I want my character to be a potent melee monster, I invest charater resources in STR, CON, high BAB class levels and/or combat feats. If I want him to be a great judge of character, I invest character resources to enhance my Sense Motive skill. If I want my character to be centred, in control of his emotions and difficult to Charm or Goad, then I invest character resources in a high WIS, high Will save class levels and/or feats like Iron Will. Not deciding by player fiat that my character is difficult/impossible to influence or manipulate.

I don't get to decide I'm a powerful fighter, or that Im slippery and agile (so I evade Fireballs, for example). I invest character resources to maximize my ability in those areas most relevant to my vision of my character. And I have to trade off - he can't be good at everything, and if he wants to be "the best there is" in one area, he's not going to be that great in other areas. Resisting social manipulation is just one more area where I have to decide the extent of character resources I'm prepared to invest, no different from any other choice of where to invest my scarce character resources.

 

[billd91]

Emphasis added. If we want to add more options to non-magic using characters, then we need to accept that moe things can be accomplished without the use of magic. The player has lost control of his PC to a Taunt spell or to a Goad/Antagonize feat. Tough luck - the PC can't simply choose to control his emotions because the player, or the PC, wants him to. If I want my character to be a potent melee monster, I invest charater resources in STR, CON, high BAB class levels and/or combat feats. If I want him to be a great judge of character, I invest character resources to enhance my Sense Motive skill. If I want my character to be centred, in control of his emotions and difficult to Charm or Goad, then I invest character resources in a high WIS, high Will save class levels and/or feats like Iron Will. Not deciding by player fiat that my character is difficult/impossible to influence or manipulate.

I generally agree with you and don't see much of a problem with feats like Goad and Antagonize. I believe, nevertheless, that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to accomplish - the real heavy duty magic stuff like teleport, fireballs, and the like. But manipulating people's emotions ranging from fear to anger to enthrallment? Oh, yeah. People do that now and that's even without being big, damn fantasy heroes.

 

[sheadunne]

I generally agree with you and don't see much of a problem with feats like Goad and Antagonize. I believe, nevertheless, that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to accomplish - the real heavy duty magic stuff like teleport, fireballs, and the like. But manipulating people's emotions ranging from fear to anger to enthrallment? Oh, yeah. People do that now and that's even without being big, damn fantasy heroes.

I think we all agree that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to do.

 

[N'raac]

I generally agree with you and don't see much of a problem with feats like Goad and Antagonize. I believe, nevertheless, that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to accomplish - the real heavy duty magic stuff like teleport, fireballs, and the like. But manipulating people's emotions ranging from fear to anger to enthrallment? Oh, yeah. People do that now and that's even without being big, damn fantasy heroes.

I'd say I generally agree as well. However, a Fireball and a hail of arrows both have the same end result of inflicting damage to targets in an area, albeit with different sources and ancillary results (I don't burn the spellbook with a hail of arrows, for example, but Damage Reduction and Fire Resistance trade off between the two). The Rogue can't Teleport, but if we allow him to build a network of mundane contacts, he could be permitted to arrange stealthy transport and surreptitious entry to many locations (sure, not the throne room - but how do you get the needed familiarity to Teleport into the throne room?). Assuming no time pressure, that has a lot of the same benefits as Teleporting - and it's not limited to the rogue and 1 extra creature per 3 levels (less if any are Large) either.

But we have to let the mundane abilities function. The rogue's contact network does the job, the smugglers don't betray the party, etc. In other words, the mundane needs reliability comparable to magic. Just like we would not suggest the Fighter keep his very reliable combat abilities, but impose a 50% failure chance on every spell cast in combat, we should not be accepting that magic never fails, while exploiting every possible failing in any non-magical ability.

You know, I keep coming back to a HeroQuest (http://moondesignpublications.com/product/heroquest-core-rules, not the boardgame series) approach. That's a pretty loose system where plaers name their abilities. So one might have Magic, a second might have Fire Magic and a third might have a Fireball. If all three want to use a Fireball to accomplish some task, the third gets an ordinary roll. The second takes a penalty, and the first a larger penalty. The most specific ability rolls normally, and broader abilities get a penalty.

In a Supers setting, we had three classes of abilities, Normal, Extraordinary and SuperPower. A SuperPower will always beat a Normal ability, and an Extraordinary ability will take a penalty against a SuperPower. But there are situations and areas where Superpowers Just. Don't. Work. More frequent existence of Anti-Magic effects might do a lot to level the playing field if magic is truly perceived as "overpowered" compared to mundane abilities. That's another potential balancer, though I'm not a real fan of "sometimes you're omnipotent and sometimes you're useless" as a balancing mechanism.

 

[billd91]

The Rogue can't Teleport, but if we allow him to build a network of mundane contacts, he could be permitted to arrange stealthy transport and surreptitious entry to many locations (sure, not the throne room - but how do you get the needed familiarity to Teleport into the throne room?). Assuming no time pressure, that has a lot of the same benefits as Teleporting - and it's not limited to the rogue and 1 extra creature per 3 levels (less if any are Large) either.

Ultimate Campaign by Paizo has some interesting ideas for use of contacts. It's one of the reasons I posted earlier that it might worthwhile giving out Leadership as a bonus feat for certain types of characters. The followers you get could be treated as contacts, scattered about in useful places, and you can get contacts to do things for you.

But we have to let the mundane abilities function. The rogue's contact network does the job, the smugglers don't betray the party, etc. In other words, the mundane needs reliability comparable to magic. Just like we would not suggest the Fighter keep his very reliable combat abilities, but impose a 50% failure chance on every spell cast in combat, we should not be accepting that magic never fails, while exploiting every possible failing in any non-magical ability.

I agree again. Magical and mundane abilities should have roughly the same fallibility or at least have appropriate trade-offs. In 1e and 2e, where saving throws got better as the targets got more powerful, martial combat was generally a more reliable process. Fighter-types hit a lot - most of the time. It was the save or sit/encounter ending spells that were a more mercurial strategy. 3e turned too much of that around. First attacks still hit well but after that things were less likely, meanwhile, casters had a lot more power to hit a weak save with an enhanced save DC.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which makes them pretty clear examples of "narrative space options for non-spellcasters".

No, it makes them examples of narrative space options for players of non-spellcasters. The character's role in any of these referenced abilities is pretty ambiguous.

That is, it reflects a philosophy that says "this fighter is too boring, let's give the player some powers beyond what the fighter can do, which will bring the player's participation in line with that of the player of a spellcaster". I don't particularly agree with this philosophy, but that's what it is.

 

[sheadunne]

No, it makes them examples of narrative space options for players of non-spellcasters. The character's role in any of these referenced abilities is pretty ambiguous.

That is, it reflects a philosophy that says "this fighter is too boring, let's give the player some powers beyond what the fighter can do, which will bring the player's participation in line with that of the player of a spellcaster". I don't particularly agree with this philosophy, but that's what it is.

I disagree. My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class. Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll.

Now in real life, I can walk into a crowded room and yell, forcing everyone's attention on me. I can do this without someone else's approval. I've controlled their reaction. No "player" is controlling me. No "DM" is controlling them. Yet I'm able to do this. How is that remotely different than giving the fighter the same ability that I have in real life?

 

[billd91]

I disagree. My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class. Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll.

Maybe the mistake was moving into the center of the room which allows them to get around you and to the people you are supposedly protecting when you should have held the choke point? Should "narrative options" substitute for bad tactics? Why should a bunch of orcs, seeing a fighter wander into the room with some other people hanging out behind him, not want to engage them too? After all, once a few of the bully-boys engage the fighter, you've still got plenty of orc brothers to take on the fighter's companions.

Now in real life, I can walk into a crowded room and yell, forcing everyone's attention on me. I can do this without someone else's approval. I've controlled their reaction. No "player" is controlling me. No "DM" is controlling them. Yet I'm able to do this. How is that remotely different than giving the fighter the same ability that I have in real life?

But can you keep that attention and prevent people leaving the room?

 

[Mike Eagling]

I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class.

Whilst I get your wider point I really must highlight that your DM is rubbish.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Now in real life, I can walk into a crowded room and yell, forcing everyone's attention on me. I can do this without someone else's approval. I've controlled their reaction.

Well, you've elicited an involuntary reaction.

How is that remotely different than giving the fighter the same ability that I have in real life?

I seriously doubt that you or anyone else has the ability to force other combatants to attack you preferentially or exclusively during a fight (especially against their own best interests). That's hardly the same thing as getting people to briefly pay attention to you after you've made a sudden noise.

Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll.

I am unfamiliar with any specific ability that works in this way (except dominate effects, in which case I have no idea why the wizard would order dominated enemies to attack the fighter when they are effectively defeated). Also, as has been covered elsewhere, the DM most certainly does have a choice in any matter.

I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks.

Well, I think the rules for movement, initiative, and rooms cover that pretty well.

He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that.

I don't get this scenario at all. If there's any kind of space restriction, martial characters can pretty easily form a physical impediment to the casters. If not, there's readied actions, AoOs, trip, etc. if the fighter wants to prevent enemies from attacking spellcasters behind him.

But yes, the bottom line is that most enemies will act rationally. Knowing that wizards are scary but have weak defenses, many intelligent enemies will target them preferentially. If a fighter wants to be the target, the best way of doing so is to establish himself as a threat, by harming and killing enemies, at which point they will target him because it makes tactical sense. None of this requires a mechanic for "aggro" or any special ability that forces enemies to behave a certain way. The point is that yes, people do ignore the guy with the weapon. Even a fairly dumb opponent like an orc should be expected to make an assessment of the tactical situation and act accordingly. The player's influence is through his character's ability to change that tactical situation, and that's quite enough IMO.

IME, most fighters and their ilk are dangerous enough that opponents will attack them fairly often without any particular action on the players' part to induce that behavior.