Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[pemerton]

Secondly, please stop accusing me of making accusations just because I pointed out a flaw in someone else's logic.

In two posts not very far upthread - posts 193 and 205 - you accused me of being disingenuous. That is not "pointing out flaws in my logic". That is accusing me of "a lack of candour" ie of lying, or otherwise deceiving or setting out to mislead.

If you're now retracting, thank you.

 

[Alzrius]

In two posts not very far upthread - posts 193 and 205 - you accused me of being disingenuous. That is not "pointing out flaws in my logic". That is accusing me of "a lack of candour" ie of lying, or otherwise deceiving or setting out to mislead.

You're incorrect on multiple points, here.

First, my previous statements were just that: statements. They weren't directed at you personally, but at the points you were presenting. To say that an argument is "disingenuous" is - as you noted previously, but mysteriously seem to have forgotten - to say that it is "insincere." Since sincerity means "genuine" or "real," that's simply another way of saying that the argument you're presenting is not valid. Since the essence of having a debate is pointing out that someone else's point does not hold to be true (unlike your own), I'm honestly not sure what you're complaining about.

In other words, I'm saying your point lacks validity (e.g. "truth") as a quality. How you're seeing that as a personal attack is beyond me.

Also, post 205 doesn't have me saying anything about you being disingenuous, per se; rather, it's me suggesting that you're wrong to dismiss other people who use that term.

If you're now retracting, thank you.

I'm not. If, however, you're now saying you misunderstood my previous statements, and so can stop accusing me of making personal accusations, then I'll thank you in turn.

 

[pemerton]

There are strategic methods for increasing narrative options for player characters. These involve immersing the PCs in the machinations of the campaign world.

My own experience is that, under classic D&D paradigms, it is typically easier for players of casters to get into this ahead of players of non-casters: in part because the players of casters have better resources for doing this (via their spells) - better in terms of both effectiveness and reliability - and in part because caster PCs tend to have better stats for this sort of stuff (esp mental rather than physical stats).

I don't know how Adventurer, Conquerer, King, or Pathfinder via Kingmaker (?) AP and Ultimate Campaign, handle this. Do they offer solutions to the asymmetry I've pointed to?

For me, D&D is cause and effect. I'm not interested in players negotiating or bidding for the opportunity to retcon the environment.

<snip>

However, taking my cue from the 1e AD&D assassination rules, I think it's entirely feasible for a thief/rogue to devote some portion of in-fiction time to infiltrate an organisation ahead of time. Think Lando Calrissian at Jabba's palace. This is where the "Surprise! It's me!" feat works, primarily because it's a strategic campaign process.

I understand each of these passage separately, but am not sure how you reconcile them. The "Surprise! It's me!" feat seems to involve a degree of retconning, and so I would have expected you to reject it to (but am happy that you don't!). Can you say more about how it fits with your broader "cause and effect" preference?

Neither am I particularly interested in abstractly resolving opportunities for role playing encounters like infiltration in the short term.

<snip>

The "conscript a militia" idea from up thread is interesting as a mundane summon "spell". A comparable "hue and cry" ability could enable a character to call upon joe public to grab the villain attempting to make his get away

Similar to above - I'd be interested to hear more about where, for you, the acceptable limits of abstraction lie.

So, what happens when a person who has *not* purchased that feat calls out "Stop Thief!" in a crowded street?

Fair question.

For me, the comparison needs to be between (say) casting a Passwall spell and pulling out your trusty pick and crowbar; or (say) casting a Hold Monster spell and wrestling the dragon to the ground bare-handed. That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.

There are at least three ways, within D&D action resolution, that I can think of to make things easier: (1) less expensive in the action economy; (2) costs less gp; (3) requires an easier die roll (or perhaps none at all).

Note that expense in the action economy is only loosely connected to time in the fiction - I'm thinking of (say) the exploration action economy that WotC is developing for Next. An example of (2) and (3) interacting from classic D&D is the scattering of food or treasure during evasion to increase your chance of success: a PC with a superior evasion ability would be able to get those sorts of bonuses without having to scatter coins.

At the tactical level of resolution, an ability in 4e that the fighter PC in my group has and uses all the time is Mighty Sprint (an encounter skill power): requires training in Athletics (so in practice is available to fighters or rangers rather than clerics or wizards), grants +5 to Athletics checks during a move action (so makes the dice rolls easier), and permits +4 to movement for one move action and ignoring difficult terrain (so improves action economy). That ability doesn't stop any other PC trying to run, climb or jump but it gives the fighter PC a clear advantage in that domain.

Until we start to see the mechanics for social interaction, evasion, etc I can't try to spell out the "Stop, thief!" ability in any detail - but I hope what I've said makes sense of how we could go about that task.

Long distance travel can be handled in an equally mundane fashion. A ranger or similarly skilled character should be able to travel great distances whilst avoiding or evading encounters. Arguably the time required to do this should be proportional to the number of travelling companions--even a large group of people can likely avoid any problems provided they don't mind taking long detours or remaining hidden for extended periods. The "anti-magic" camouflage skill is an interesting idea. I was reminded of the scene in LotR when the Fellowship evade Saruman's crebain or the Nazgul in the Dead Marshes.

I'm glad you thought of those LotR scenes - I had them in mind too!

 

[Mike Eagling]

So, what happens when a person who has *not* purchased that feat calls out "Stop Thief!" in a crowded street?

To take the conscription idea, which was mentioned somewhere upthread, it was suggested that this would normally be role-played out. I'd assume that would include some kind of diplomacy or intimidate roll so a "Conscript Militia" feat would presumably provide a bonus to that roll. The "Hue and Cry" feat would likely work in a similar way.

My own experience is that, under classic D&D paradigms, it is typically easier for players of casters to get into this ahead of players of non-casters: in part because the players of casters have better resources for doing this (via their spells) - better in terms of both effectiveness and reliability - and in part because caster PCs tend to have better stats for this sort of stuff (esp mental rather than physical stats).

Well, we're on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the disparity between casters and non-casters and I'm loath to enter the discussion in any depth in an attempt to keep the discussion on topic. Suffice it to say that in my experience of 1e AD&D I have found opportunities for non-casters to influence the world they inhabit

I don't know how Adventurer, Conquerer, King, or Pathfinder via Kingmaker (?) AP and Ultimate Campaign, handle this. Do they offer solutions to the asymmetry I've pointed to?

I've not played ACKS but picked up the PDF a few months ago out of interest. It's essentially BECMI with an assumed endgame similar to 1e's campaign infrastructure--i.e. stronghold building for fighters, magical research for wizards, etc. I'm unfamiliar with BECMI (I came in at B/X then moved to AD&D) so I don't know how ACKS compares in this respect.

(As an aside, ACKS has a permanent wounds system you may appreciate.)

The Kingmaker AP does something similar for Pathfinder. It introduces rules for founding, ruling, and defending kingdoms. These are revised and expanded upon in Ultimate Campaigns. I'm still waiting for my copy of UC to ship so don't know the extent of this revision.

I didn't think either ACKS or Kingmaker did anything particularly ground-breaking compared to AD&D so, from your perspective, they're probably just as unbalanced?

I understand each of these passage separately, but am not sure how you reconcile them.
The "Surprise! It's me!" feat seems to involve a degree of retconning, and so I would have expected you to reject it to (but am happy that you don't!). Can you say more about how it fits with your broader "cause and effect" preference?

As originally presented the "Surprise! It's me!" feat seemed to imply that the rogue could invoke this feat and suddenly become disguised as someone else. IIRC they would move from being with the party in the king's hall to suddenly being one of the serving wenches, or something. The rationale seemed to be along the lines of "Actually, I'm not with the party after all, I snuck off earlier and disguised myself. I'm now stood behind the king with a plate of lobsters and a knife to his back". Perhaps that's a misinterpretation but it's the impression I took away.

Assuming this is what was meant this utterly defies my interpretation of how D&D works. I'm all for a rogue slipping away from the party (stealth), donning a disguise (disguise) and ending up in the same place (bluff), but deciding they did this after the fact is anathema to me. Cause and effect. Rogues can't travel back in time, so their players can't decide they'd rather have done something else after the fact either.

However, assume the party plan to enter the king's hall for some reason. For the sake of argument they plan to rescue their comrades. There's nothing to stop the rogue going on ahead to infiltrate the palace, a la Lando Calrissian. I guess I don't really view it as a feat. Infiltration is/should be a skill much the same as assassination in 1e AD&D. It's perhaps akin to craft or profession in 3.x terms, i.e. an action of long duration. Does that make sense?

Similar to above - I'd be interested to hear more about where, for you, the acceptable limits of abstraction lie.

Well, hopefully the above explains the distinction i make between infiltration in the short and long term.

I view the conscription and hue & cry ideas as extensions to diplomacy/intimidate/leadership/etc. They have limited application--they can't magic people into existence; they only really make sense in a populated environment. I guess I view these as feats that enhance leadership, granting some kind of DC bonus.

That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.

Yeah, like that

 

[sheadunne]

For me, the comparison needs to be between (say) casting a Passwall spell and pulling out your trusty pick and crowbar; or (say) casting a Hold Monster spell and wrestling the dragon to the ground bare-handed. That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.

The difference between if I yell "Stop" and if a cop yells "Stop." One is going to have a greater impact, presumably because the cop is both dressed as a cop and has learned to yell "stop" more effectively.

If the ability was done as a saving throw with a mechanic that allowed either for a willing fail on the part of the targets (the crowd is already on your side) would make more sense to be than a skill check. It also allows characters from classes that may be weak on the correct skill ability score to still be effective with the ability. But it really does depend on how the mechanics work in general.

Either way though, it's on the right track.

 

[pemerton]

As originally presented the "Surprise! It's me!" feat seemed to imply that the rogue could invoke this feat and suddenly become disguised as someone else. IIRC they would move from being with the party in the king's hall to suddenly being one of the serving wenches, or something. The rationale seemed to be along the lines of "Actually, I'm not with the party after all, I snuck off earlier and disguised myself. I'm now stood behind the king with a plate of lobsters and a knife to his back". Perhaps that's a misinterpretation but it's the impression I took away.

Assuming this is what was meant this utterly defies my interpretation of how D&D works. I'm all for a rogue slipping away from the party (stealth), donning a disguise (disguise) and ending up in the same place (bluff), but deciding they did this after the fact is anathema to me. Cause and effect. Rogues can't travel back in time, so their players can't decide they'd rather have done something else after the fact either.

However, assume the party plan to enter the king's hall for some reason. For the sake of argument they plan to rescue their comrades. There's nothing to stop the rogue going on ahead to infiltrate the palace, a la Lando Calrissian. I guess I don't really view it as a feat. Infiltration is/should be a skill much the same as assassination in 1e AD&D. It's perhaps akin to craft or profession in 3.x terms, i.e. an action of long duration.

Here's what I think is by your standards a middle-path. How would this work for you?

The party agree they are going to enter the king's hall. At that point, the player of the thief announces that his/her PC is going to inflitrate.

The rest of the party enter the hall and are having an audience with the king. A fight breaks out. At that point, the player of the thief gets to go "Surprise! It's me!" and declare that (say) one of the king's houseguards is really the thief in disguise.

In this version, there's no "time travel". Strictly speaking there's no retconning either - nothing up to date has shown that the houseguard is not the thief. What there is is filling in of backstory after the event. So at the metagame level the player gets to optimise the thief's choice of who to disguise as, by making sure it's someone relevant to how things play out.

Would that be acceptable to you?

EDIT: Also, thanks for the reply on ACK/KM/UC - can't XP again at this time.

 

[Warbringer]

Rogues can't travel back in time, so their players can't decide they'd rather have done something else after the fact either.

The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions are not character actions. The rest is narrative justification (" I cast a spell", "I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking", "I realized that the kings guard owed me a huge favor and I called it in")

I know this is a play-style issue, but its a play-style issue

 

[Mike Eagling]

Here's what I think is by your standards a middle-path. How would this work for you?

The party agree they are going to enter the king's hall. At that point, the player of the thief announces that his/her PC is going to inflitrate.

The rest of the party enter the hall and are having an audience with the king. A fight breaks out. At that point, the player of the thief gets to go "Surprise! It's me!" and declare that (say) one of the king's houseguards is really the thief in disguise.

In this version, there's no "time travel". Strictly speaking there's no retconning either - nothing up to date has shown that the houseguard is not the thief. What there is is filling in of backstory after the event. So at the metagame level the player gets to optimise the thief's choice of who to disguise as, by making sure it's someone relevant to how things play out.

Would that be acceptable to you?

EDIT: Also, thanks for the reply on ACK/KM/UC - can't XP again at this time.

Consider the opening sequence of "True Lies". That could be construed as Infiltration. Alternatively, it could be achieved as a sequence of Disguise, (Swim), Stealth, and Bluff rolls. As a GM I'd allow Arnie to use whichever skill(s) were the most favourable. In the interests of the story I want him to get in. The fun starts when he tries to get out..!

Returning to our adventurers, the only reluctance I would have is if Infiltration allowed the rogue to pick any time, place or character with which to perform their big reveal. It would depend greatly upon the circumstances and, primarily, upon the plan they had concocted.

Assuming a world without sophisticated comms there's a big grey area regarding in-character knowledge. However, the plan would not need to be any more detailed than "I infiltrate the palace, disguise myself as a guard, and wait for you in the great hall". Provided the rest of the party stuck to the plan and got to the hall the rogue would be there when the fight kicked off.

If the party deviated from the plan and the fight kicked off in the courtyard there would be a delay between the fight kicking off, the rogue learning of this, and (assuming it was his intent) his arrival at the courtyard. Generally speaking this delay would be just long enough for him to make a dramatic entrance into the fray...

 

[pemerton]

The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions are not character actions. The rest is narrative justification

I agree, but I think we have to recognise that for a lot of players it seems that that sort of separation of character from player action is not desirable. Hence my attempt at a "middle" way in post 226, to see what [MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION] thinks of it.

 

[Mike Eagling]

The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions are not character actions. The rest is narrative justification (" I cast a spell", "I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking", "I realized that the kings guard owed me a huge favor and I called it in")

I know this is a play-style issue, but its a play-style issue

This is a play-style issue, which is why I disagree with it. If it works for you: great. But it doesn't work for me.