Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters
- Thread starter Starfox
- Start date
In the OP, it is stated more generally - more space for everyone who isn't a spellcaster - the idea being that spellcasters dominate narrative space, in general.
Here's an example: I play in a Star Wars Saga Edition game. All five PCs are Force-users. When we started making characters, three wanted to be "fighty", one wanted to be our social-primary, and that left the rest (piloting, mechanics, knowledge skills) to me. When all was said and done, when combat started... I didn't have a lot to do. I had a bundle of hit points, so I was in no danger of dying, but having not optimized for combat, compared to the three who were optimized, my contribution just wasn't relevant.
So, that may be a way to put it - "narrative space" may vaguely correspond to "relevance". He's asking, in general, for ways for non-spellcasters to be *relevant* to play more of the time, across many types of situations, rather than relevant just within their specialization.
Now, I'm of two minds on that. One is that yes, you don't want players to be bored, and players who feel they are not relevant stop trying and get bored. On the other hand, if you build a character that is specialized, you should expect that they'll be really good in their specialization, but not so hot outside that specialization. Don't cry when you get what you ask for!
The D&D fighter does to some seem to have the particular problem (depending upon edition) that they don't really dole out the most damage in a fight, nor do they have skills useful outside combat. So, they are specialized, but not so impressive within that specialty either. That can be a problem.
Now, we could ask for mechanical cures for this. However, we should note that there are solutions that lie elsewhere. For example, sometimes you can handle such issues in adventure design. For my Star Wars character, the problem is solved when there are goals in combat that aren't about the actual fight. I can pursue those, while the fighty characters are busy with all the fighting.
Quickleaf
Legend
[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]
Right, adventure design being the other way to come at the potential problem. That is, if you even agree there is a problem.
I've said that many of the martial practices of 4e should have been included as core class features of the rogue and fighter classes re-released in Essentials. Sort of how the Essentials ranger gets "wilderness knacks." So your 1st level fighter might choose "Armscraft" and gain the ability to appraise and identify weapons & armor, or choose "Siegecraft" and gain proficiency with siege weapons and familiarity with siege tactics, or choose "Campaigning" and know how to organize troop supply lines, calculate marching distances, etc. These sorts of abilities serve a design space between backgrounds and skills; they suggest something about your fighter's story and also give capabilities in non-combat areas of the game like exploration, interaction, etc.
They also act as a menu which help to define a particular fighter. After all, every D&D game probably has combat in it. If the fighter player chooses "Armscraft" then that is a cue for the DM to include a subplot or challenge involving appraising...perhaps there are heraldic devices or other clues on arms found by the PCs which the fighter can decipher.
Right, adventure design being the other way to come at the potential problem. That is, if you even agree there is a problem.
I've said that many of the martial practices of 4e should have been included as core class features of the rogue and fighter classes re-released in Essentials. Sort of how the Essentials ranger gets "wilderness knacks." So your 1st level fighter might choose "Armscraft" and gain the ability to appraise and identify weapons & armor, or choose "Siegecraft" and gain proficiency with siege weapons and familiarity with siege tactics, or choose "Campaigning" and know how to organize troop supply lines, calculate marching distances, etc. These sorts of abilities serve a design space between backgrounds and skills; they suggest something about your fighter's story and also give capabilities in non-combat areas of the game like exploration, interaction, etc.
They also act as a menu which help to define a particular fighter. After all, every D&D game probably has combat in it. If the fighter player chooses "Armscraft" then that is a cue for the DM to include a subplot or challenge involving appraising...perhaps there are heraldic devices or other clues on arms found by the PCs which the fighter can decipher.
Starfox
Hero
This is a very good narrative device, but it works just as well for everyone. I won't kick you out of the thread or anything for that or anything (not that I could if I wanted) - narrative devices spellcasters can use are also cool. But in a way it makes more sense for mundane characters to do this - it is generally assumed that spellcasters spend a lot of off-screen time pursuing their powers, while martial characters do not.
[MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] brings up a valid point about fighter narrative control, but no, I don't think it is enough - and aggro control is also very contentious. In my 4E game, the fighter's control felt over-effective and basically meant there was very little tactical movement, ever (Come and Get it to gather opponents - and then most everyone are stuck there for the rest of the fight). While abilities like that give nice narrative control options in combat if written well, the narrative control I am speaking of deals with campaign issues more than tactical issues. But that need not be true to every player and/or DM - I am mainly a storyteller, with storyteller preferences. To me, fights are mainly a cool diversion while the story unfolds, kind of like a mini-game in a computer adventure game. The story is always the main thing.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
This is what I was thinking while reading. 4e got some high amount of praise for meta mechanics, but I found them extremely underwhelming, as far as meta mechanics go. I don't find "can trip stuff, even dragons" and "can try to get enemies to attack me" as that great, honestly, when it comes to control over the story. Especially when the Fighter gets bad skills, and the Wizard still gets ritual casting (with Phantom Steed and teleportation) as a class feature.
If we're going to look at story implications, I'd agree with you that we should look beyond combat. Combat is important story, sure, but there are so many other areas where story matters. My preference is toning down big spells, while buffing up and defining skills, but I do use a couple type of universal meta-mechanics (Luck Points and Fame Points), and I use Hero Points when I play M&M, so I'm not completely against those implementations, either. As always, play what you like
Mishihari Lord
First Post
The very first thing that comes to mind for me on this topic is the 1E fighter. If I'm remembering correctly, he accumulates followers as he goes up in level and gets a castle at name level. This adds all kinds of narrative options without simply duplicating the spellcasters. Some of the followers can be spellcasters too. I honestly never really cared for this approach to fighters, but in this context it makes sense.
Yes, well, though I gave the example, I happen to think it works astoundingly poorly for D&D in general. It is the wrong genre - D&D is largely about rather direct application of power, while Leverage, true to it's name, is about being smart and subtle. It was merely an example of something that expands narrative space, in general.
But, as a general design consideration - there comes a point where a character has enough options that they can always make themselves relevant, if they choose. At that point, if you have something even vaguely resembling a decent action economy, how many options another player has isn't relevant, as they cannot use them all.
Basically, so long as I can always get my spotlight time, I don't care how many ways Joe has to get his.
We cannot help it if players don't realize that keeping in top form for mundane skills still requires work off-screen. Really, we can't. If the player thinks Conan keeps in fighting trim sitting on the couch eating Cheetos, we really can't help them.
Starfox
Hero
Since you called me out on this I'll try to answer, tough I am not very familiar with martial practices - they appeared in 4E just as I was ending my 4E game. But from what I remember, they were a step in the right direction, but most felt overly specific and also a bit anemic - like rituals in many ways. Out of combat options in 4E felt neglected IMO - I think this was to facilitate the DMs job by making it easier to keep the players on track in a linear adventure. (OK, enough with the 4E bashing - sorry).
Back on track, if you combine martial practices with the quote from Umbran on another thread, I think we can get somewhere. Since martial practices generally take time to do in game, time you are generally short on in an adventuring situation, I feel martial practices should be the kind of thing you are assumed to have done in an earlier downtime. This would be about the same as spell preparation then - something you did before the adventure, and can take out when needed to solve a situation in-game.
(Of course, if martial practices are allowed to retcon preparations and spells are not, they need to be balanced accordingly. But then no-one is suggesting martial practices would do things like wall of stone or teleport - they'd be more useful but still useful things like a skeleton key suited to a certain lock, a uniform to disguise yourself as a guard, or horses hidden for a convenient escape - things which you by old school would do in-game, but which today's faster game styles don't give time for. Such planning and forethouight can be replaced with martial practices.
This is my take on it, tough I realize it might annoy old-school players to no end.
Another novel mechanical approach to generating narrative space, in this case favoring non-violent actions: The initiative system from "Doctor Who - Adventures in Time and Space".
In this game, initiatives are set not by a die roll, but by action types - actions are taken in the following order: Talkers, Runners, Doers, Fighters. If you want to try to talk your way out of a situation, you get to do that first, then go the people who want to run away, then those who want to do something (like, say, fiddle with a technological gizmo), and only then do the people who want to do direct damage to the enemy.
This works in support of those in non-combat roles (like, say, that anime girl in the definition of "narrative space"). The basic concept can be altered to favor whatever form of activity you want. For example, you can do it by power source, and put martial first.
In this game, initiatives are set not by a die roll, but by action types - actions are taken in the following order: Talkers, Runners, Doers, Fighters. If you want to try to talk your way out of a situation, you get to do that first, then go the people who want to run away, then those who want to do something (like, say, fiddle with a technological gizmo), and only then do the people who want to do direct damage to the enemy.
This works in support of those in non-combat roles (like, say, that anime girl in the definition of "narrative space"). The basic concept can be altered to favor whatever form of activity you want. For example, you can do it by power source, and put martial first.
