"Narrative Options" mechanical?

[Doug McCrae]

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).

Also, as evidenced by Old Geezer's thread on rpg.net (which I found from a link you posted a while back) we know that Gary Gygax's players used out of character knowledge all the time. For example all the PCs would keep their shields carefully polished to reflect the gaze of a medusa, whether a character knew about these monsters or not. It was very strongly gamist play, challenging the player's ability to outwit the DM's dungeon.

I think, in Forge terminology, this is pawn stance, whereas [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] seems to be saying that only actor stance is appropriate for D&D. Actor stance is more of a 2nd ed and later idea in D&D texts, though there were always people who wanted to play that way. It's very much the Dragonlance playstyle imo.

 

[pemerton]

Gary Gygax's players used out of character knowledge all the time. For example all the PCs would keep their shields carefully polished to reflect the gaze of a medusa, whether a character knew about these monsters or not. It was very strongly gamist play, challenging the player's ability to outwit the DM's dungeon.

I think, in Forge terminology, this is pawn stance, whereas [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] seems to be saying that only actor stance is appropriate for D&D. Actor stance is more of a 2nd ed and later idea in D&D texts, though there were always people who wanted to play that way. It's very much the Dragonlance playstyle imo.

Agree completely. Gygaxian play is hardcore Pawn stance - look at his play advice at the end of his PHB, for instance (the last page or two before the Appendices). There is not a hint, there, that decisions about how to prepare or play out an adventure would be influenced by considerations of PC personality (Actor stance) or the need to retroactively establish a coherent PC personality (non-Pawn Author stance).

I agree with you about 2nd ed AD&D and Dragonlance, too, though I think Moldvay Basic also took a bit of a different approach to this from Gygaxian play, at least as it was written (maybe not how it was played). The play example in which the cleric (Sister Rebecca?) and Morgan Ironwolf argue about the propriety of killing prisoners, for instance, looks like it could easily arise within an Actor stance approach.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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).

From a purely theoretical perspective, I can see how there's a metagame aspect to those, but AFAIK, none of those things require or even allow the players to make choices from outside of their characters' perspective and abilities. DMs in D&D do have to make many such choices, to be fair.

I don't really get this contrast between RPGs and "story games"

I find that hard to believe. You might term it differently, but I think the distinction between a game where you are strictly playing one character and a game where you have "narrative control" outside of that character is pretty clear; I'm simply not a fan of the Forge-ist jargon you might have used to describe that.

And again, I like the story games for what they are, but I don't like the idea of shifting D&D in their direction.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I wasn't speaking to whether metagame mechanics were "harder" to pick up or not, instead I was speaking to popularity... I mean let's look at some of the games you continuously cite as examples... MHRP was recently cancelled, The Dying Earth rpg is no longer published and I don't think Hero Wars/Quest is either. DitV and Burning Wheel are barely blips on most gamers radars... Honestly, Fate is about the only rpg that you continuously mention (and ironically enough have claimed the least experience with) that I can see as being anything resembling popular and, as far as I can tell from other sites, that seems to be mostly amongst already established gamers.

That said, by far the most popular (and thus accessible) roleplaying games are of the traditional variety. Burning Wheel, Maelstrom, and the other games you continually mention are nowhere near the scale of popularity that Pathfinder, Warhammer 40K, Iron Kingdoms, D&D, Dragon Age and so on have. I mean if this is what D&D should be striving for why aren't these games which make heavy use of meta-game mechanics more popular amongst gamers? Why aren't they bringing in a flood of new gamers? Why have so many of them fallen into publishing limbo or obscurity and/or are barely mentioned on most rpg sites?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the distinction between a game where you are strictly playing one character and a game where you have "narrative control" outside of that character is pretty clear

In a typical roleplaying session, don't players often wield powers that go beyond their characters' capabilities? Character creation, character backstory elements, giving tactical advice or other suggestions to another player, providing advice to the GM in an area of special expertise (such as medieval weaponry or Forgotten Realms canon), arguments about what's realistic, rules knowledge, ideas for house rules, bringing third party rules supplements to the table, suggestions to increase or decrease the power of certain player character or NPC abilities, and the "GM's significant other" phenomena.

For example if a player knows an obscure rule that the GM has forgotten, which will have a strong effect on an activity currently being performed by a second player's character, then the first player has the power, in this situation, to bring the rule to the GM's attention. This is power over the game-space that the player's character doesn't possess. This type of thing happens frequently, in my experience.

 

[sheadunne]

Let's remember that there's a difference between narrative and story. Narrative is used to describe the scene (there are three orcs in the room) and story is what happens during (a battle ensues, dice are rolled, story emerges). Martial characters can interact with the story but they don't have the capacity to change or even shape the narrative (they cannot say that the orc are really chickens and the room is really a giant pit), only the story that emerges (they can choose what actions to take to fight the orcs, talk to them, etc). Casters have the ability to change and shape the narrative (those orcs really are chickens) as well as interact with the story (burn, lightening, ray beams).

It's perfectly fine to want to limit narrative capacity to the DM and casters, D&D has traditionally done this, although I'm not sure it was done intentionally. For those who want balance, it's not between story abilities it's between narrative control abilities. These abilities do not have to do the same things, but what's wrong with the fighter saying, the orcs charge me because I'm wearing shiny armor and look threatening (narrative), and when they get into range I attack them (story)?

Another way to look at it is, narrative does not require dice rolls. It is a description. A fact if you will. The narrative can be determined randomly (wandering monsters for instance) but it's rare that the entire narrative will be determine randomly (the size of the room, the location, the creatures, the traps, etc). And from a player point of view, it doesn't matter. The narrative has been described by the DM and it's time to start making stories (unless you're a caster, then you have some resources to change that narrative if you don't like it).

Story is the result of dice rolls (rules) that interact with the narrative. Does the brave sir walter hit the orc? Does he survive the stab to the chest? Does the rogue manage to steal the gem or sneak past the ogre? All players can interact with the narrative to create the story, regardless of character abilities.

Anyway, carry onward.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

My understanding of the difference is that RPGs explicitly allow anything to be attempted by the PCs, though the likelihood of success can vary dramatically. By contrast, story games place constraints on character agency in favor of the narrative - to use a slightly exaggerated example, I may be playing Professor Plum in a game of Clue(do), trying to figure out who killed our host, but I can't just decide to have the Professor attack the other characters, or leave the house, or something similar.

Given that, I suspect that most (if not all) of the examples you cited actually are RPGs.

 

[Imaro]

For example if a player knows an obscure rule that the GM has forgotten, which will have a strong effect on an activity currently being performed by a second player's character, then the first player has the power, in this situation, to bring the rule to the GM's attention. This is power over the game-space that the player's character doesn't possess. This type of thing happens frequently, in my experience.

Unless the player created the rule... I'm not sure how this gives the player power over the game space... if anything it is the player reminding the DM (and the other players) to acknowledge the power of the rules over an area of the game space that all participants implicitly agreed to follow when they decided to play. This is also ignoring the fact that the DM can still choose to invoke rule 0... and do it his own way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not sure how this gives the player power over the game space

Because the player can choose whether or not to bring the rule to the table's attention. That rule, just sitting there in the book, can't make itself known unless a participant in the game actually raises the issue. It's true that the GM could Rule Zero it, but just because power is not absolute, does not mean it isn't power. That A can veto B does not render B powerless.

My broader point is really that, in the roleplaying games I'm used to playing, all the participants around the table have all sorts of sway over what happens in the shared imaginary space that go beyond character capabilities, and that's without using any metagame rules such as hero points. In actual play, it's a somewhat raucous democratic process with all sorts of influence being exerted, not an absolutist GM-ocracy or absolutist rules-ocracy.

EDIT: If we do accept that Rule Zero negates player power, then that would equally apply to narrative metagame mechanics. It would mean that a player using the original Come And Get It power for instance *doesn't* have any power over the game space beyond that possessed by his character, because any use of CAGI could be Rule Zero-ed.

 

[N'raac]

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

An opposed CHA check. How good is your spellcaster's CHA? As I recall, he had little or no diplomatic skills. I'd expect important leaders to by and large have pretty good CHA scores. But yes, you can force him do "do things he would not normally do". Which would seem to make it even more likely those familiar with the patron become suspicious of his actions. Now, here in the Real World, we'd probably be confused by the fact he just isn't acting consistent with his usual self. In a D&D world, considering the possibility of enchantment as very real seems much more likely. And how many spellcasters can manage a Detect Magic spell? Then there's that Sense Motive check - even the completely non-magical can detect that the target is under the effect of an Enchantment spell, although the DC is pretty stiff.

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

See above.

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.)

The SRD tells me retries are

Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.

So I may be able to change his mind, or I may be able to try a different tack. By the same token, the Charm Person spell is silent about re-trying that opposed CHA check. Given Charm predisposes the target to favour the caster, not dominate the target (Sense Motive is way better against Dominate), I would suggest re-tries of that opposed CHA check would suffer from similar problems. But, if you want to give the most spellcaster-favourable interpretation to the rules (while arguing spellcasters are overpowered, of course), then the repeated oppose CHA check finally succeeding seems like another reason for observers to question what's going on with the target of the spell.

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

Looking at the SR, I note:

- Scry lasts 1 minute per level. You need to observe the area for 1 hour according to Teleport.

- You must Scry a creature, not a location. A lack of knowledge of the person makes it easier for him to save so the scry spell fails, and you can't just pick "some random slumdweller", as you need either knowledge of, or a connection to, the target.

- The area you can see is pretty limited - about 10' around the creature targeted.

- If the creature moves, you don't get the full duration of the spell to study even that limited location.

- If the creature saves, you need to try again tomorrow.

Scrying is a bit of a "homebody" spell. It's not that easy to drag "A mirror of finely wrought and highly polished silver costing not less than 1,000 gp. The mirror must be at least 2 feet by 4 feet." along with you through the dungeon or wilderness. It's easier for the Druid, though. But he doesn't cast Teleport.

By the time you get to study the desired area for an hour through Scry, I'm thinking the rogue could have made a lot of progress with his contacts.

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.

At 9th level, that's you and three other Medium or smaller creatures. As the spell is "personal and touch", your familiar should be able to share the teleport. But the Druid's or Ranger's animal companion, anyone else's familiar, etc. is another creature (let's hope neither they nor any party member is Large). The size of your party, including any henchmen that we do want accompanying us, anyone we need to bring with us depending on the adventure goals, etc. adds caster levels required to transport the entire group.

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.)

I expect you'll be much more noticable materializing from thin air (regardless of your appearance) than departing the ship with cloaks up against the sea breeze. Invisibility will at least delay the appearance. So you arrive in the slums, with everyone standing within 10' of the wizard (no biggie - they had to be in physical contact to teleport anyway). There's a few people in the alley. How are you communicating which direction to travel in to find a hiding place to reappear? Remember, anyone who gets more than 10' away reappears. And roll your Stealth checks so no one hears that invisible movement.

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).

If the adventurers having a 5th level spell (they aren't that hard to come by - every PC hitting 9th level can find the spell easily) makes them that intimidating and fearsome, why do they need to slip into the city detected in the first place?

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.

If you use the spell on a regular basis, 1 in 14 "similar area mishaps" seems significant. 1 in 4 failures seems more significant. And I'm still waiting for that easy "studied it carefully for at least one hour" scrying spell to be cited.

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.

Those things the characters can do trivially are not actually "problems". At 1st level, I don't have the PC's fight 6 mosquitos and consider that a challenge. 6 orcs? That's a challenge. At 5th level, 6 orcs are easily swept aside, so they get ignored, or dismissed as a trivial challenge. When the party has access to long distance travel magic, travelling hundreds of miles is no longer a challenge - it's a trivial matter, the ease of overcoming which serves no real purpose, unless it is to highlight the power of the party as compared to the average commoner. So is the Fighter with his +12 Intimidate shutting up the nosy neighbour. At this level, they need more powerful challenges.

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

By making the hiring of smugglers a risky, uncertain venture despite the skills and network of contacts of the rogue, while brushing off the RAW risks and limitations of teleportation, you trivialize the abilities of the rogue, and enhance the power of the wizard. That's not what the rules say, it's you minimizing or ignoring the limits of the spells by RAW, but refusing to allow the rogue the same leeway simply because his abilities are mundane, rather than magical.

If the city guards are so terrified of the power to rip a hole in reality, why are the smugglers not remotely intimidated by the party?

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.

Probably from a GM who is determined not to have the PC's abilities override the challenge he had in mind. That's the only context I raised the possibility of a Teleport Redirect or Teleport Block in. However, you would think, with Teleport being omnipresent and solving ever problem with getting at the Bad Guys, there would be more spells and magic items out there to frustrate Teleportation.