"Narrative Options" mechanical?

[MJS]

@MJS

So if its all DM interpretation of narrative (which is what you get without mechanical support) why does the fighter have to roll to hit or indeed the DM to damage him in return, or the rogue to pick a lock or avoid the consequences of triggering a trap?

Whether eloquent or not ("I challenge the scoundrel and let him know that on this day he will be held accountable for his actions through the justice of a blade that has never been defeated in combat. I hold aloft my blade and him see its brightness and its sharpness" or "I hit him with my sword") is still narrative, resolution, outcome/consequence.

For many players, they want control over the outcome and mechanical interaction with the resolution (as opposed to DM fiat), or put it another way they tell that part of the story.

Re using imagination, this mechanical approach again and again creates more creative interaction (and places the burden to do so on he player) than relying on table arbitration, it is not a magic card power tap that you worry it is.

I think there is a broad distinction to make between the to-hit roll, and granting spell powers to non spellcasting classes. My DM would always ask how you are justifying something you want to happen. So the example of picking who will live or die in a combat has to be justified (to my rather old school of thought) ... How? Because its a feat in a book doesn't cut it with me.
I can work with any players's desire, and want them to succeed and have fun. I simply disagree that "narrative option" is a matter of having spell powers. I rather prefer to engage even further, with more layers, what they want to do. And if they do develop special powers, let it result from something that happens in the game. Like that fighter becomes a follower of the God of Death, and is granted this cleric-like ability on fulfilling something.
I suspect this is where these ideas came from initially, anyway.

 

[Warbringer]

@mls

That's your choice to frame narrative impacting decisions as "spells", its a fairly traditional attitude in D&D ... And there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

It's just that some groups prefer to open up encouraging creative play with requiring DM fiat to say yes or no, oft referred to "Mother May I".

If you take "powers" ala 4e and replace all specific wording with opportunities to interact with page 42 (DMG) you've simply created a powerful tool for setting expected parameters on outcomes for players that encourages creative play ....

There are plenty of posts on this topic you might want to look into that really show the two sides of this particular nerd chasm