Haha. Fair enough.
Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters
- Thread starter Starfox
- Start date
Haha. Fair enough.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Well put. The outcome of the situation is dicated by tactical considerations, which players have plenty of control over.
The scenario he posited did seem to assume some ridiculousness on the DM's part (which, as I always say, is not for the rules to fix).
Mike Eagling
Explorer
Yeah, it's a contrived example for illustration purposes but it doesn't work, IMHO:
If a lone fighter bursts into a room full of orcs (assuming they're combatants) they're going to wonder whether he's crazy or much more dangerous than he looks. Either way, all orc eyes will be on the fighter until they've established which.
So a "look at me!" feat is completely unnecessary to achieve the desired result, provided the orcs were role-played with the intelligence they warrant.
Yeah, it's a contrived example for illustration purposes but it doesn't work, IMHO:
If a lone fighter bursts into a room full of orcs (assuming they're combatants) they're going to wonder whether he's crazy or much more dangerous than he looks. Either way, all orc eyes will be on the fighter until they've established which.
So a "look at me!" feat is completely unnecessary to achieve the desired result, provided the orcs were role-played with the intelligence they warrant.
He wasn't alone in the example, thought I mentioned that. Oh well. I really think we need to start having these conversations without examples because people tend to only focus on the example and ignore the point of the entire post. Again, oh well.
Mike Eagling
Explorer
"He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party."
Guess I buried it, though I didn't think it was that important. Tis the nature of examples I suppose.
Savage Wombat
Hero
I'd like to point out that if a party of PCs is in a room, and a huge ogre bursts in to engage them while his MU buddy waits out in the corridor, at least half of my players, if not more, would immediately run past the ogre to get the MU. Maybe that's why the orcs do it to you.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I couldn't tell what the point was. Was the point that you expected your fighter to be able to force enemies to make a suboptimal tactical decision (attacking you)? Was the point that a fighter should be different in some way such that attacking him instead of other party members is a better decision? Those are the two interpretations that occurred to me, and neither made much sense to me.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
This is why I think skills are incredibly powerful when it comes to narrative control situations like the example being mentioned now. I use a modified version of GitP's Diplomacy Rule that I call Negotiation (and the DCs have been modified, etc.). If the Fighter had this skill (or a skill like it, but only for convincing people to fight him, like for a duel, etc.), then he could burst in, shout something like "I challenge all you weak-ass, pansy orcs to take me on, if you're man enough," and roll his skill check to get them to attack.
The GM, as of that point, sets the DC based on Risk vs Reward (do they perceive him as weak? If so, probably in the Fighter's favor), Relationship (Enemy, looks like, so since they distrust him, slightly harder to manipulate), and hit die (orcs are generally easier to manipulate than pit fiends). If the Fighter succeeds, the orcs take him up on his challenge, and attack him (so they don't appear weak). Of course, they'd have to understand the Fighter, but that makes sense, to me. Maybe his "challenge" ability that mimics Negotiation for fights also gives him "phrases to issue challenges in nearly every language, as well as dirty words in those languages"?
And, of course, if the Fighter tried to get, say, a drow wizard to attack in melee (which he could specify in his challenge, instead of just "fight me"), the Risk vs Reward would be harder, since the drow wizard sucks in melee (and probably has a higher Wisdom than those orcs). Again, he might be able to do it, though, if he gets a high enough result; that's just him getting under the drow wizard's skin, and the wizard taking him on. If the Fighter wants more reliable results, a straight "give me your best shot" would have an easier skill check DC than asking for melee combat (again, which makes sense).
This is why I wanted skills to be much more defined. You start giving people broad abilities like this one skill, and you've opened up a lot of space for what they can do to the narrative. I still want the skills well-defined (a lot more defined that 4e, 3.5's Diplomacy, etc.), though, and I just doubt we'll see that. And that's too bad, because you can have some really cool stuff come from it. As always, play what you like
The GM, as of that point, sets the DC based on Risk vs Reward (do they perceive him as weak? If so, probably in the Fighter's favor), Relationship (Enemy, looks like, so since they distrust him, slightly harder to manipulate), and hit die (orcs are generally easier to manipulate than pit fiends). If the Fighter succeeds, the orcs take him up on his challenge, and attack him (so they don't appear weak). Of course, they'd have to understand the Fighter, but that makes sense, to me. Maybe his "challenge" ability that mimics Negotiation for fights also gives him "phrases to issue challenges in nearly every language, as well as dirty words in those languages"?
And, of course, if the Fighter tried to get, say, a drow wizard to attack in melee (which he could specify in his challenge, instead of just "fight me"), the Risk vs Reward would be harder, since the drow wizard sucks in melee (and probably has a higher Wisdom than those orcs). Again, he might be able to do it, though, if he gets a high enough result; that's just him getting under the drow wizard's skin, and the wizard taking him on. If the Fighter wants more reliable results, a straight "give me your best shot" would have an easier skill check DC than asking for melee combat (again, which makes sense).
This is why I wanted skills to be much more defined. You start giving people broad abilities like this one skill, and you've opened up a lot of space for what they can do to the narrative. I still want the skills well-defined (a lot more defined that 4e, 3.5's Diplomacy, etc.), though, and I just doubt we'll see that. And that's too bad, because you can have some really cool stuff come from it. As always, play what you like
Mike Eagling
Explorer
No, I get there are other people in the party. The implication appeared to be that they were, as others have described it, "waiting in the corridor". Thus, from the orcs' initial perspective the fighter was alone and the effect you were describing (all attention on the fighter) should have been possible even in the absence of an explicit rule on a character sheet.
As said upthread, not everything has to be fixed by the rules. It is possible to, maybe, role-play this stuff.
