Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Warbringer]

For me, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is that for players to have more decision making or influence power in narrative space the DM must relinquish some control of that space, if just for a limited time.

The fixation on creating rules for players to have legitimate authority to do this is a bit of a red herring. The DM can simply create the narrative space to enable this to happen: direct authority, token exchange, check vs. target number.

The best way of working out what this looks like and how much authority will be shared is by sitting down with the players at the start of the campaign.

 

[n00bdragon]

For me, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is that for players to have more decision making or influence power in narrative space the DM must relinquish some control of that space, if just for a limited time.

The fixation on creating rules for players to have legitimate authority to do this is a bit of a red herring. The DM can simply create the narrative space to enable this to happen: direct authority, token exchange, check vs. target number.

The best way of working out what this looks like and how much authority will be shared is by sitting down with the players at the start of the campaign.

But this has not always been the case. Historically in D&D spellcasters are allowed a very wide latitude of narrative space. If the DM says there is string of mountains, a dozen orc tribes, and a frozen ocean made of the wailing of dead souls between the players and their objectives the party spellcaster almost always has access to multiple spells which bypass or trivialize these obstacles. Spells like fly, move earth, create water, charm person, invisibility, etc are often called the "batman spells" because, like Adam West, they are known for bypassing all manner of problems through trivial plot device.

The problem being addressed in this topic is that until 4e that space was entirely confined to spellcasters while everyone else was confined to doing what might be "realistically possible" (I use the term lightly) and subject to the probabilities of failure therein.

 

[Warbringer]

But this has not always been the case. Historically in D&D spellcasters are allowed a very wide latitude of narrative space. If the DM says there is string of mountains, a dozen orc tribes, and a frozen ocean made of the wailing of dead souls between the players and their objectives the party spellcaster almost always has access to multiple spells which bypass or trivialize these obstacles. Spells like fly, move earth, create water, charm person, invisibility, etc are often called the "batman spells" because, like Adam West, they are known for bypassing all manner of problems through trivial plot device.

The problem being addressed in this topic is that until 4e that space was entirely confined to spellcasters while everyone else was confined to doing what might be "realistically possible" (I use the term lightly) and subject to the probabilities of failure therein.

Yeah, I get that and have been following from the start. My point is that when ideas have surfaced, and there have been a few (retcon, feats, skill checks) they get bogged down in that a DM is not willing to assign that authority to "non-magic" reasons.

Hence, my position, you have to first release narrative authority to creat a space for non-casters before trying to rationalize it in game (personally, I like the players to do that)

With traditional D&D I think lack of a codified system for skills and feats, and far less spellcasting power was far better at this by the simple fact role playing filled the space so it was by default more about the players filling the narrative space, than rules giving hem permission.

(I've played since 1978 and I don't remember us ever experiencing 15MWD, even when the wizard only had one spell )

 

[The Mormegil]

In games like Earthdawn and in anime-inspired fantasy, everybody is a magician - some magicians just happen to be swinging swords. Pathfinder is also moving in that direction, with the new semi-magical classes like Magus and Alchemist. But DnD has always had a tradition of allowing characters to be mundane, and yet to act on the same stage as magical characters, and for many players that is an important distinction. So the option to be nonmagical should be there, just as the option to be semi-magical, demi-magical, fully magical or any other degree each player wants.

As a comparison, everyone today can use a smartphone - its like using a magic sword, just swing it. But not everyone can get the most out of it.

And that is why I shouldn't include TL;DR in my posts anymore.

 

[Starfox]

That must be why I didn't assert this.

We donöt always argue against what people said, but against what we read into it. It happens, and isn't personal.

EDIT: If the only way that players of fighters and rogues have to effectively change the narrative space is to have their PCs kill things, then they will take that approach. This has been a recurring issue in D&D.

Yeah, this does happen - sort of the backside of not giving any narrative control except combat is that you get a lot of combat. This is a good reason to hand out such options (which is what I suppose you meant by posting this).

For me, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is that for players to have more decision making or influence power in narrative space the DM must relinquish some control of that space, if just for a limited time.

The fixation on creating rules for players to have legitimate authority to do this is a bit of a red herring. The DM can simply create the narrative space to enable this to happen: direct authority, token exchange, check vs. target number.

The best way of working out what this looks like and how much authority will be shared is by sitting down with the players at the start of the campaign.

For me, the problem is often to get the players to seize the initiative. I can say that "hero points lets players introduce a plot element" as much as I like, but if the players don't want to go into author stance, it won't help. Thus I prefer to write "actor stance" options for my players to use. We use what works.

And that is why I shouldn't include TL;DR in my posts anymore.

What does DT;DR mean?

 

[Tuft]

What does DT;DR mean?

For [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]:
TL;DR = "too long, did not read". Originally a comment on too verbose and dense texts, inicating that the reader skipped whole or parts. Here it was used to indicate a summary for those who thougth the whole text was "to long, did not read".

 

[Starfox]

And that is why I shouldn't include TL;DR in my posts anymore.

Ok, to expound om ny reply; I didn't mean to say you were wrong, I was just trying to show how it fits in the whole DnD tradition. If we can give non-casters interesting ways to interact with magic, that's a good thing. But it has complications and collides with traditions, as outlines in my answer above.

In other words, i did read your post, but I only relied to parts of it

 

[The Mormegil]

Ok, to expound om ny reply; I didn't mean to say you were wrong, I was just trying to show how it fits in the whole DnD tradition. If we can give non-casters interesting ways to interact with magic, that's a good thing. But it has complications and collides with traditions, as outlines in my answer above.

In other words, i did read your post, but I only relied to parts of it

I'm sorry, from your comment and choice of quote I thought you didn't read the whole of it. I specifically mention that it is not required (or wanted) for everybody to be a wizard. But the point is, if you have a class whose whole purpose is to "not interact with wizardry stuff", you have a huge problem (as outlined in my post). I think there is nothing in D&D tradition that restricts fighters to be so dumb that they can't understand or do anything about magic in any way. Even just being trained to react to magic, or to resist magic, would be something (...probably too little, but something). It's not that everybody needs to do magic, it's that everybody should interact with magic. Think of it this way: would you want to have a space opera RPG with a class whose main schtick was to "not being able to use any form of technology"? Or "cannot interact with aliens in any interesting way"? Or even just "cannot go in space, not even with spacecraft"? Sure, you could do all kinds of stuff on one planet, but it's space opera. You're kind of supposed to go from planet to planet, aren't you.

I do admit I'm generally biased against D&D tradition though - mostly because it's tradition, AKA "doing things because tons of people did'em before and they couldn't all have been wrong could they".

 

[Starfox]

I do admit I'm generally biased against D&D tradition though - mostly because it's tradition, AKA "doing things because tons of people did'em before and they couldn't all have been wrong could they".

Yeah, that's how I read your post, which is why I mentioned "other systems". In other words, if this is really important to you, perhaps DnD isn't the game for you. But that doesn't make the point invalid; this is an "All DnD" thread, but ideas for other games systems are certainly welcome.

That said, your kind of magic interaction is easy to do, but hard to write rules for. If I put a glowing pillar of light in an adventure, and someone carrying the right rune and entering the pillar can get various magical effects, that is something anyone can do (as you wish it to be) - Knowledge Arcana might help to understand this, but is not mandatory. But that's the GM's decision to put in an adventure. To actually make rules about this kind of thing is hard. IMO Earthdawn certainly didn't manage to do so, despite trying with their threadweaving rules.

In anime, magic is usually akin to DnD sorcery. Each character has his personal magic, and often doesn't have any deeper understanding of that magic - it is all inborn or intuitive. Most everybody is as clueless when they encounter a magical phenomena in the world. A game based on such a magic tradition wouldn't have may magical tools for interacting with the world either. And divination abilities are really rare. I think the reason is that it simply makes a better story t have the heroes muddle trough and find things out by trying than to say "Kazam" - problem solved. To a certain point, that is true in RPGs too.

 

[Tuft]

I'm sorry, from your comment and choice of quote I thought you didn't read the whole of it. I specifically mention that it is not required (or wanted) for everybody to be a wizard. But the point is, if you have a class whose whole purpose is to "not interact with wizardry stuff", you have a huge problem (as outlined in my post). I think there is nothing in D&D tradition that restricts fighters to be so dumb that they can't understand or do anything about magic in any way. Even just being trained to react to magic, or to resist magic, would be something (...probably too little, but something). It's not that everybody needs to do magic, it's that everybody should interact with magic. Think of it this way: would you want to have a space opera RPG with a class whose main schtick was to "not being able to use any form of technology"? Or "cannot interact with aliens in any interesting way"? Or even just "cannot go in space, not even with spacecraft"? Sure, you could do all kinds of stuff on one planet, but it's space opera. You're kind of supposed to go from planet to planet, aren't you.

I do admit I'm generally biased against D&D tradition though - mostly because it's tradition, AKA "doing things because tons of people did'em before and they couldn't all have been wrong could they".

Traditionally this is simply done with magic items.

Since so many of these duplicate magic spells, they enable those without spells to do the same thing as those who do have them, being a big equalizer.

Of course, magic items give those with spells *more* magic, but there is a *major* difference between getting an extra fly/day when you already have one or more, and getting one you did not have before!

And, as a second "of course", this does not apply to boring old plus items (+1 to hit, damage, AC). IIRC, earlier in the thread it was mentioned that combat performance pressure might force the fighter into picking "being better at fighting" feats over non-combat/narrative control ones. The same applies to magic items. The fighter might feel forced to choose to upgrade his sword from +4 to +5 over getting that Passwall Ring, either by his own expectations, or by peer pressure.

So, to get the fighter to *actually pick* narrative control abilities, whether it is new class abilities, or old magic item abilities, how do we relieve that pressure? By limiting free selection, forcing certain build options? (In fact, we have DMs out there who, I assume unintentionally, exclude the fighter from "narrative control" style items, simply by limiting available treasure...)