"Narrative Options" mechanical?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Also, teleporting can be very dangerous. You dont always know what you are beaming into. It can attract extra-planar attention as well. A wizard that overuses teleport might well face some natural/unnatural consequences down the line...

Don't know if you're talking to me, but:

1) That's right, you wouldn't know what you're teleporting into, any more than you know whether the smugglers will betray you, or the guards will find you, etc. It's still less risky. (The teleport table isn't that bad.) Furthermore, you're not teleporting by yourself, but with the whole party.

2) I don't remember anything like that in the rules. Sounds vague. Also sounds like a plot hook.

 

[N'raac]

Part of the problem is that Wizards don't have to "describe their actions." The DM says that there is a mountain in the PCs' path, so the Wizard says, "I cast Fly and fly over it," while the Fighter player says, "I'm going to climb the mountain," at which point the DM begins subjecting him to an arbitrary amount of skill checks, each one making it increasingly likely that the PC will fail, while the Wizard just pressed the "I Win" button.

I think a class feature that would work for giving Fighters more narrative control would be something like, "When attempting to climb, on a successful check, you no longer have to make any more checks to continue climbing, regardless of how high the obstacle is."

Or "Having a Climb skill sufficient to succeed if you roll a 10 or higher allows you to succeed all the way up, under ordinary circumstances"? Which, I believe, is called "taking 10". I don't see the need for a second mechanic to allow a skill roll to continue succeeding.

Yes, wizards have more options. Whatever non-combat options a fighter has, so does the wizard. A fighter with low Charisma and no training in Diplomacy and Intimidate can attempt to influence a potential patron, and so can a wizard who also has low Charisma and no training in Diplomacy and Intimidate. (Both will likely fail, but that's how it works, right?)

Right.

And then the wizard can cast Charm Monster.

So we'll just start casting a spell during this audience and nothing will happen? If the patron makes his save, he will just go on chatting, or perhaps declare the audience over and let the Wizard be on his way? Or will he summon his guards an have the wizard executed for his effrontry?

And if the patron has a priest on standby, making sure no one casts spells, the wizard can that night polymorph into something small and sneak into the patron's room, unmorph, Charm Monster them, then leave, and the next day try again, only now the patron is bowing and scraping...

First off, Charm does not equal "bowing and scraping". Second, no one notices the sudden change of heart overnight, and thinks to cast Detect Magic (or just makes a good enough Sense Motive check to discern he is enchanted)? The Charm can be dispelled as well. Its duration will end. And what happens when an opposing Wizard uses the same spell? In my view, at least, attempting and failing with diplomacy carries much less negative consequences than if that spell fails, or when that spell ends. It also shifted the attitude of the target, and there's no reason it should shift back unless you GIVE the patron a reason.

Need to slip into a city undetected? The rogue can use his contacts to arrange for smugglers to slip the PCs into the city, or the wizard can Teleport you into the slums. The former involves trusting a group of crooks not to betray you and possible discovery by the guards, the latter involves a chance of the wizard flubbing a percentage roll and that's about it. The former can take days, the latter a minute.

So, you've never been in the city before? The spell clearly states "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination." Where did that clear idea come from, when you have never been there? An hour of scrying to study a location will do the trick - what scrying spell will you use to gain that knowledge? How many of you need to get into that city (Teleport limits the numbers, remember?). Do any people see you appear? So much for "undetected" when a hue and cry is raised about that group which just appeared out of nowhere. Seems to me there could be good reasons to arrange for more mundane transport. Oh, and watch out for those "similar area" mishaps - how long will it take to figure out you teleported into the wrong city?

But let's assume it does work - here we are in the city. Now we can pursue whatever our goal was in the city. What does it matter which character got a minute of screen time for either "I cast Teleport" or "I arrange to be smuggled into the city"? That's nice - on with the game! Clearly, if the party has the Teleport spell, they will use it. The GM, then, should be designing scenarios around the fact that the players have access to this movement ability. Let's say it's really essential - we need to get to the city 750 miles away by nightfall to prevent the Horrible Ritual. Would that event have occured if the players lacked the ability to get there?

"OK, since you first level rookies can't get there in time, the world ends. Make new characters."

"WOW - that was the best campaign ever!"

And I guess if those dice come up wrong, we've used our Teleport spell and can't get there - the whole campaign comes down to a single random roll. If the dice come up wrong, the campaign ends?

What? It doesn't matter anyway? Sorry, guys, the villains of the campaign hired a wizard who Teleported to your Inn (just like you were going to teleport to the city), Polymorphed into a mouse, snuck into the wizard's room and cast Charm Monster (several times). Your party wizard wouldn't dream of ruining his new best friend's birthday party by Teleporting you into the city to disrupt it!

 

[N'raac]

Ultimately, if the GM will ensure that every mundane method I can use to get into the city will be fraught with betrayals, I doubt he's above having a barrier against Teleports, or even a Teleport redirected straight to the enemy's dungeons.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So we'll just start casting a spell during this audience and nothing will happen? If the patron makes his save, he will just go on chatting, or perhaps declare the audience over and let the Wizard be on his way? Or will he summon his guards an have the wizard executed for his effrontry?

That's without there being a spellcaster to check on what's going on.

First off, Charm does not equal "bowing and scraping".

You can make a check to make the person obey your orders.

Second, no one notices the sudden change of heart overnight

"I changed my mind, while sleeping on it."

In my view, at least, attempting and failing with diplomacy carries much less negative consequences than if that spell fails, or when that spell ends.

That was an extra option after Diplomacy fails. (You can't keep using Diplomacy on the same thing. You could keep trying to charm the patron.)

So, you've never been in the city before? The spell clearly states "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination." Where did that clear idea come from, when you have never been there? An hour of scrying to study a location will do the trick - what scrying spell will you use to gain that knowledge?

Scrying will probably do the trick, and it's a lower-level spell.

How many of you need to get into that city (Teleport limits the numbers, remember?).

You can bring one person per 3 levels. By the time you can cast the spell, you can take a typical party with you. No need to bring the henchmen, if you have any.

Do any people see you appear? So much for "undetected" when a hue and cry is raised about that group which just appeared out of nowhere.

It's a much bigger issue if the guards see you, than random passerby who would have seen you post-smuggling anyway. But if you were that worried, cast Invisibility Circle or an appearance-disguising spell ahead of time. (Teleport has such a quick casting time, you'll still have time left for being invisible.)

More likely, if you didn't turn invisible (maybe you didn't have that spell that day, sorry I spent about 1 minute thinking up this scenario rather than a more realistic 1 hour discussion followed by prepping spells the next day) the guards show up, see the adventurers who can rip holes in reality to teleport wherever they want, and run and go fetch the SWAT Team (Flaming Fist mercenaries, or Red Helmets, or whatever they're called in that city).

Oh, and watch out for those "similar area" mishaps - how long will it take to figure out you teleported into the wrong city?

At most, your similar area mishap is 7%. Having seen the area even once, your chance of failure is 25%, and having studied it carefully, much less. People really do focus on the mishap chance.

But let's assume it does work - here we are in the city. Now we can pursue whatever our goal was in the city. What does it matter which character got a minute of screen time for either "I cast Teleport" or "I arrange to be smuggled into the city"?

It matters because the wizard can trivially solve a lot of problems. Not just getting into the city. He can turn you invisible so you can stealth better than the rogue (or buff up the rogue's stealth a lot farther than it can normally go). He can change your appearance. He can teleport the whole party out of combat, in 6-12 seconds. He can Jedi mind trick the nosy neighbor.

Ultimately, if the GM will ensure that every mundane method I can use to get into the city will be fraught with betrayals, I doubt he's above having a barrier against Teleports, or even a Teleport redirected straight to the enemy's dungeons.

Sorry, I said that where? Hiring smugglers was just one way in. It just happens to be slower and riskier than teleporting.

As for teleport redirects, I sure hope that villain doesn't use their incredible power to cast Teleport Catch over an entire city to instead find and destroy those pesky adventurers instead. I don't know where villains get that kind of power from. Artifacts maybe.

 

[MJS]

What say I?

I say narrative options are about as applicable to D&D as the price of whelk pelts. That is, not at all.

Mainly because actively playing a roleplaying game is not in any way constructing a narrative.

Magic is flashier and can accomplish more than the mundane. Therefore in order that magic not be the ultimate dominating force it needs to be a somewhat unreliable and finite resource. At will magic and powerful effects that almost always work as intended will slide the scale towards overpowering magic.

I'm on the same page there. I want all players to feel empowered and have a blast, and involved, and important. I think that magic, ultimately, is King, and I don't have a problem with that.
But there are rules precedents, if we need those : ) , that limit magic that aren't used....component costs can limit high level spells. Rest time for a D&D wizard is also vital. Then there was spellbook costs.
I think its important that you said active RPGing is not narrative construction. Much less narrative control.

 

[Umbran]

Ok, that out of the way - I am first off a bit disturbed by the language itself - "narrative control/options". IMO nobody, not even DM, has narrative control of a D&D game, and indeed that is, to me, a defining characteristic. The players play, the DM referees and plays with them, but NO ONE is driving the bus. That's the magic.

Ah, you see, I view it differently. The magic, for me, is that EVERYONE helps drive the bus. Or, at least, the potential is there. The problems arise when someone is left without useful ways to try to contribute to the journey.

If spellcasters are totally dominating the game, as a DM, I will... Hurt them...in a good way of course. If theyre scribing reams of scrolls is problematic, make it harder. Make them only scribable on a full moon, or something.

So, rather than give something new to one player, you'll take something away from another player. That's your choice, of course, but I don't know that your wizard players will really find that a great solution.

But even so, I simply do not equate a characters ability to interact with the gameworld with spells or skills.

You don't need to equate them. You simply have to recognize that the characters that have spells or skills already defined to give them ways to interact with the world to have a leg up on those who have no such pre-defined methods.

...but a lack of player ability is not a good reason to pile on mechanical options.

That's an oldie, but not a goodie - basically, what you're saying is, "A *good* GM/player does not have problems." There are two basic issues with that stance:

1) Plain old elitism. The implication is that "if you aren't good enough, well, to heck with you!" I don't think snobbery is a good basis for game design decisions, either in terms of business, or in terms of the game that is thus produced.

2) The logic is weak. It can be applied to *any* aspect of gaming. If anyone has any issue or thing they don't like at the table, we can ascribe it to the players/GM being "not good enough", dismiss the issue, and go on with life in our feelings of superiority. It may feel good to you, but it is not constructive or helpful to anyone else. It does not help anyone have a better time at the table.

2a) Applying this logic, no game actually needs any rules at all. Fighters don't need defined skills? Okay. Well, maybe wizards don't need defined spells, either. And then really, do we need a combat *system*, or is that just a crutch for people who aren't good enough players? That the logic does not stop itself shows that the line drawn is arbitrary, based on personal preference rather than reasoned principle. Which is fine - you can draw such lines for your own game. But your personal preference is not a compelling argument for a designer selling to tens of thousands of people.

 

[Manbearcat]

You don't need to equate them. You simply have to recognize that the characters that have spells or skills already defined to give them ways to interact with the world to have a leg up on those who have no such pre-defined methods.

Yup. There is a reason that virtually everyone fixates on establishing the border of a puzzle before they work on the interior. There is a reason that puzzlers like to have the picture in front of them as a template to work from. Organizing chaos from an overwhelming multitude of possibilities and vague patterns into something more manageable is standard problem-solving M.O. for most people.

 

[MJS]

That's an oldie, but not a goodie - basically, what you're saying is, "A *good* GM/player does not have problems." There are two basic issues with that stance:

1) Plain old elitism. The implication is that "if you aren't good enough, well, to heck with you!" I don't think snobbery is a good basis for game design decisions, either in terms of business, or in terms of the game that is thus produced.

2) The logic is weak. It can be applied to *any* aspect of gaming. If anyone has any issue or thing they don't like at the table, we can ascribe it to the players/GM being "not good enough", dismiss the issue, and go on with life in our feelings of superiority. It may feel good to you, but it is not constructive or helpful to anyone else. It does not help anyone have a better time at the table.

2a) Applying this logic, no game actually needs any rules at all. Fighters don't need defined skills? Okay. Well, maybe wizards don't need defined spells, either. And then really, do we need a combat *system*, or is that just a crutch for people who aren't good enough players? That the logic does not stop itself shows that the line drawn is arbitrary, based on personal preference rather than reasoned principle. Which is fine - you can draw such lines for your own game. But your personal preference is not a compelling argument for a designer selling to tens of thousands of people.

well, as a Taoist sort of person, no one driving and everyone driving is the same point. We actually dont view that differently then. What you are describing is the same magic.

as to my terrible elitism, well, . First off, you are arguing against what I didn't say, so, whatevs...."good players/DMs don't have problems" is not a statement I made.
What I am saying there is, there is such a thing as players/DMs of greater and lesser skill. Acknowledging that isn't elitism. Players of lesser skill are going to be what? Less imaginative, less interesting, less fun to play with. All of that goes along with our poor old fighter who has nothing to do but swing a sword and flex at girls.
A more skilled player will have that fighter doing all sorts of things, regardless of what is on the character sheet.
I acknowledge that spells and abilities give an edge up when I say that the fighter may be the most difficult class to play in a fun and interesting way.
As to your 2 and 2a, you've set your strawman alight.
I have no problem giving fighters skills. If 3E really only gives 7 to the class, all I can say is....add skills.... If you're using skills, they need to be infinite. But they also need to make sense. I think we need to stop trying to balance fighter to mage, and balance fighter to fighter. To itself. There are thousands of skill possibilities, without granting spell powers to address some perceived lack of limelight that, yes, I believe would be less if the player thought outside of the box a bit more. I am far from the best at it.
And, yes, I am saying that less skilled DMs are more likely to let the spellcasters dominate too much. The recommendations on reigning in wizards goes back to Gygax. Not the full moon scribing thing, that just sounded cool, but costs, components, the possibility of spellbook damage, all Gary. I ignored some of his rules, too, but he wrote all of that in the 1E DMG knowing that without carefully limiting magic, it would unbalance the game.
Or, we could just give fighters a limited wish spell each session. Or maybe two...

 

[howandwhy99]

I keep hearing that fighters, poor fighters, have nothing to do. We've been hearing that, of course, for decades, and to me it seems that the fighter class "cause" is the rallying cry of munchkinism, of video gamey mechanics that make no sense in RPGing. To me, you have to describe your actions. MMORPG mechanics circumvent all of that. Is truly an endless cycle - the player wants more narrative options, which is not attainable through mechanics.
For instance, in the other thread it is suggested to have an "its not there" card, so non spellcasters can make things go poof, for some reason. Nothing personal, but I think that might be the worst idea ever.
SNIP
I cant even tell you how many times a fighter altered the game with something they did or said. My feeling is that the fighter class may be the most challenging in the game to play *interestingly*, but a lack of player ability is not a good reason to pile on mechanical options. There is no end to it, and the "its not there" card idea is the crystallization of all that. Its almost anti-imagination.

What say you?

First off, most wargames and simulation games are going to have actions delineated for the purposes of strategic (aka game) play. Story games are going to lean towards having as few rules as possible and even no rules in order to reject barriers to creating. These really aren't about strategizing at all, but on the spot improvisation and brainstorming of more novel ideas. Either of these playstyles can be challenging, but they focus on very different aspects of living.

In D&D, a cooperative simulation puzzle where all the game mechanics are hidden from the players and treated like a puzzle, we are going to get both strategic game play, but the players will be in the position of openly exploring. They don't have any lists of actions they can take. Of course, the rules on how to converse with Ref limits what they express, but still their options are still vastly open as these rules include any symbol-based communication. This means constructions like shared spoken and written languages, illustrations more than art, and reference models both parties can engage with for demonstrations.

Fighters in D&D are the absolute best equipped for the game's/code's Combat System. That means they can simply do more and achieve more regularly at combat than any other core class. The other classes simply aren't built for combat, at least not like a Fighting-man is. They have their own hidden game systems to explore.

If the players are looking for class abilities/powers to demonstrate how their class is powerful, than you likely have d20 or later edition D&D players. That's okay, but let them know this game isn't the same and plays quite differently from preconceptions about gaming they may already hold.

I believe fighting classes used to be the most common as players were drawn from wargames and early fighting computer games. They already understood basic tactics and standard wargame mechanics. The game wasn't boring because suggested designs include (usually) well balanced, rather standard wargames, but these were now used as a hidden open system rather than a known closed one.

 

[pemerton]

I am first off a bit disturbed by the language itself - "narrative control/options". IMO nobody, not even DM, has narrative control of a D&D game, and indeed that is, to me, a defining characteristic. The players play, the DM referees and plays with them, but NO ONE is driving the bus. That's the magic.

<snip>

If spellcasters are totally dominating the game, as a DM, I will... Hurt them...in a good way of course. If theyre scribing reams of scrolls is problematic, make it harder. Make them only scribable on a full moon, or something.

I don't want to say that these two comments are in flat-out contradiction - but there's at least a fairly high degree of tension, I think.

A more skilled player will have that fighter doing all sorts of things, regardless of what is on the character sheet.

Applying this logic, no game actually needs any rules at all. Fighters don't need defined skills? Okay. Well, maybe wizards don't need defined spells, either.

To add to Umbran's point: there are many perfectly good RPG systems out there that do as he suggests, and don't give wizards defined spells, but rather require them to freeform their magic on the basis of give-and-take negotiation with the GM. Even 4e has elements of this with the Arcana skill, at least as it is played at my table.

But freeforming isn't the only mechanic available. And freeforming can itself be better or worse (or just differently) supported by a mechanical framework. Look at games like HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP or 4e which support freeforming via a system of "level appropriate" DCs, with the narration then shaped to fit that; or look at Burning Wheel, which uses "objective" rather than "level appropriate" DCs but has a very strong fail-forward approach to adjudication to ensure that even if the PC suffers when freeforming fails, the player doesn't.

I don't think WotC (or TSR) have come out with "good" narrative-driven mechanics, and you will often have to steal such mechanics from other games.

FATE, for instance, has some very good mechanics

<snip>

We engaged in a skill challenge (it's called "dramatic conflict" or something like that in FATE)

<snip>

4e's skill challenge system supports (to some extent) the same thing, although in a social skill challenge, there's a good chance that only half the PCs can provide significant contributions.

Given the presence of skill challenges in 4e, I think your opening sentence is a little unfair (although I guess "good" is in the eye of the beholder!).

Your comment about social skill challenges is an important one. My view is that there is a need for give and take between players, system and GM here. To elaborate: the GM needs to frame challenges keeping in mind, at least roughly, what sorts of PCs his players are playing. But equally, players have to be prepared to have a go even if they will fail. Essentials tries to incentivise this by awarding skill challenge XP whether or not the PCs succeed; and DMG 2 discusses (not as well as Burning Wheel, in my view) the idea of "fail forward" adjudication.

For those players who won't engage, the job of the GM (as I see it) is to force them. So in a combat, if the wizard or rogue is hanging back and shirking, as GM you can have a lurker suddenly enter the battlefield and engage them! Or the enemy archers open fire on them. In other words, the player doesn't get to choose to keep out of the action - the GM can frame them in by dictating the NPCs' actions. The same thing applies in a social skill challenge - the duke, or guild lord, or whomever it is the PCs are talking to asks the dwarven fighter a question. Now the player has no choice but to engage!

To me, the distinguishing aspect of D&D is that the DM has essentially 99% control, and the players only control the 1% things that their characters control. And indeed, that's what makes it a true "role playing game",

<snip>

Giving players power outside of their characters' knowledge and abilities takes you into different territory, which can either be framed positively (as a story game) or negatively (as pure immersion-breaking metagame mechanics). In my view, that different territory is interesting for other games, but inappropriate for D&D.

I don't really get this contrast between RPGs and "story games", given that all the ostensible story games I know of - HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Marvel Heroic RP, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Dying Earth, 4e, etc - characterise themselves as RPGs, are played by RPG players, are discussed on RPG boards, etc.

If you want to play an RPG with no metagame mechanics (ie mechanics whereby players exercise power outside of their PCs' knowledge and abilities), fine - Runequest and Traveller are excellent games that I'm sure you'll enjoy! But there are plenty of use who don't mind metagame abilities in their RPGs.

And I don't see why D&D shouldn't be one such. After all, it started with a large number of them (XP, hp, saving throws).

Personally I enjoy games which give narrative control over to players... but, you have to have players that want to experience the game in such a way for it to work well... and D&D being the gateway game, I'm not sure if including such mechnics (unless presented as an optional add-on) is worthwhile or even a disereable thing for the majority of D&D's fanbase.

I woudn't pretend to speak for the majority of D&D's fanbase (actual or potential). But I don't know of any evidence that a "gateway" game is better without metagame mechanics. By all accounts new players have no trouble picking up FATE or Marvel Heroic RP.