Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Warbringer]

IME, most fighters and their ilk are dangerous enough that opponents will attack them fairly often without any particular action on the players' part to induce that behavior.

No, they attack if the DM decides they attack because he only (outside 4e) controls the mechanic, which is the whole point of the discussion: how to create narrative ability for players of non-spellcasters to shape the response of the antagonistic elements in the scene

 

[N'raac]

Ultimate Campaign by Paizo has some interesting ideas for use of contacts. It's one of the reasons I posted earlier that it might worthwhile giving out Leadership as a bonus feat for certain types of characters. The followers you get could be treated as contacts, scattered about in useful places, and you can get contacts to do things for you.

Why a bonus feat? Why not "if you want these things, you take this feat, instead of a different feat that makes you more capable in combat/spellcasting./whatever?" Does the fighter have insufficient feats? If so, then let's give him more, by all means. But not tell him "you are a Fighter, so you get this feat, at this level, which makes you a Leader of Men. You don't get to choose to take it earlier, or later. You can't choose something else. All fighters must be Leaders of Men, and they must become such at this specific level".

I disagree. My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class. Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll.

So what's the fix? I'm pretty sure there are feat chains that can allow you extra AoO's, reach weapons to broaden your reach and further feats that will preclude the orcs from continuing to move after your AoO. A new feat that allows you to, say, use your Intimidate skill to cause enemies to focus their attacks on you, rather than your allies, seems like a reasonable add, which will give you the result you want. But there will, presumably, be a new desired result later on. Should you get infinite feats? The 1st level Wizard does not get a Fireball spell, not even if he rolls really well trying to cast it, nor does he have a spell he can use in an anti-magic field. Until, of course, one is added and he has the option of selecting it. Maybe this should be included in Intimidate, or maybe we need a different skill to encompass this.

But, having made this a feat or a skill, now the Wizard can take it too, so the fighter is not unique in having access to this ability. Should he be? If this is something anyone can do, why should the rules restrict it to fighters? Isn't that why we ditched thieving skills that didn't allow other classes to climb walls or hide in shadows?

 

[Warbringer]

So a "look at me!" feat is completely unnecessary to achieve the desired result, provided the orcs were role-played with the intelligence they warrant.

I think the example clearly warrants that the player needs the ability to prevent a DM overriding simply because he wants to.

The key to narrative is shared authorship; period.

 

[Mike Eagling]

I think the example clearly warrants that the player needs the ability to prevent a DM overriding simply because he wants to.

Well my "completely unnecessary" referred to that specific example, assuming a decent GM and a decent explanation of the player's actions and intentions. I wasn't implying such a feat/skill/whatever was verboten generally.

The key to narrative is shared authorship; period.

Completely agree.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No, they attack if the DM decides they attack because he only (outside 4e) controls the mechanic,

Yes, that's what "induce" means. The DM is induced to use the enemy is a particular way.

which is the whole point of the discussion: how to create narrative ability for players of non-spellcasters to shape the response of the antagonistic elements in the scene

Which is my point. Why would anyone have that ability? Spellcasters don't control their enemies (barring some rare exceptions involving enchantments and such). And everyone shapes the responses of the enemies by doing things that enemies react to (assuming they are thinking enemies; again barring exceptions for mindlessness). The player characters are controlled by the players, the nonplayer characters by the DM. I don't understand why this is a problem to some.

 

[pemerton]

No, it makes them examples of narrative space options for players of non-spellcasters.

That's what the thread is about - options to give players of non-spellcasters greater narrative space options. It's pretty obvious that those are going to have to inlcude metagame mechanics, given that narrative space options (i) involve changing the narrative space in ways that extend beyond ingame causal capacities triggered by in-character RP with linear time sequences, and (ii) non-spellcasters are, within the fiction, limited to their in-character causal capacities.

As said upthread, not everything has to be fixed by the rules. It is possible to, maybe, role-play this stuff.

This is equally true for the spellcaster. The cleric can negotiate with his/her god, for example (played by the GM). The wizard can free-form spellcasting.

But for various reasons, some mere tradition but I think not only that, players of spellcasters get some determinate abilities that don't depend upon persuading the GM via roleplay. Narrative options for players of non-spellcasters are about giving those other players the same sort of capabilities.

This is why I think skills are incredibly powerful when it comes to narrative control situations like the example being mentioned now. I use a modified version of GitP's Diplomacy Rule that I call Negotiation (and the DCs have been modified, etc.). If the Fighter had this skill (or a skill like it, but only for convincing people to fight him, like for a duel, etc.), then he could burst in, shout something like "I challenge all you weak-ass, pansy orcs to take me on, if you're man enough," and roll his skill check to get them to attack.

There are two dimensions in play here.

One is whether resolution should be via "fortune" (successful die roll) or "karma (fiatable ability, though perhaps from a rationed supply). Burning Wheel opts for fortune every time; D&D traditionally opts for karma when it comes to spells, and 4e extends that approach to non-casters - so (pre-errata) CaGI doesn't depend upon a die roll, just like Transmute Mud to Rock doesn't depend upon a die roll. Which is preferable depends in part on taste, in part on the sort of feel you're trying to create - D&D is definitely more heroic in tone than BW, though BW also has a complicated Fate Point economy to try to mitigate the vagaries of fortune at certain key moments in play.

The second dimension is whether these abilities - be they fortune or karma - have metagame dimensions or not. In BW they do - with a successful skill roll the player can stipulate new backstory. In 4e the metagame element is less obivous - eg most uses of Come and Get It, and most uses of marking, lend themselves to a perfectly feasible ingame interpretation without any need to assume director's stance. The biggest metagame aspect to CaGI is actually it's rationing rules (it's an encounter power) rather than its deployment in action resolution. (Some cases of CaGI against oozes would be the notorious exceptions, but I don't think many people play campaigns that are that heavily ooze-laden that this would be the primary experience of CaGI.)

My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it?

A bit tangential, but did you try 4e and not like it, or not try it? The player of a 4e fighter definitely has the resources on his/her PC sheet to do the sort of thing you are talking about here.

 

[JamesonCourage]

There are two dimensions in play here.

One is whether resolution should be via "fortune" (successful die roll) or "karma (fiatable ability, though perhaps from a rationed supply).

The second dimension is whether these abilities - be they fortune or karma - have metagame dimensions or not.

I'm not sure if you're trying to build on what I say here just in general, or if you're trying to get me to reply to something in specific. Yes, there are "roll dice" and "don't roll dice" methods, and meta and non-meta methods. I agree that those exist. Unfortunately, I think I missed what you were trying to point out to me... can you help me out? As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure if you're trying to build on what I say here just in general, or if you're trying to get me to reply to something in specific.

A bit of A, a bit of B. For instance, I'm curious as to which dimension you see the "incredible power" of skills deriving from.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A bit of A, a bit of B. For instance, I'm curious as to which dimension you see the "incredible power" of skills deriving from.

I'd definitely side with "fortune" as far as approaching skills from a design perspective goes. Of course, I prefer skills that scale as you level, with ample ability to "take 10" and static DCs (even if threatened / distracted, if you invest in it). At some point, certain skill-based abilities become "karma", since you can take a 10 and succeeded with no roll required, even in combat; the Fighter can reliably get low level orcs to attack him, but not reliably get pit fiends to do so-that requires a roll.

Meta / non-meta doesn't make much of a difference from the design perspective (in my mind), but I'd lean towards non-meta (since that's my personal preference in play). They each have their benefits, depending on what your goal is, your personal preferences, etc. For example, meta mechanics might help immerse one person, while pulling others out of immersion. The downside of meta mechanics is that certain builds that would seemingly use it more (Fighter, Rogue, etc.) might seem "luckier" in-game, and not as competent as their spellcasting companions. The upside, of course, is that you give those same builds a lot more power to help put them on equal footing with magic, without worrying about how it works from the mundane character's perspective.

Did that help at all clarify my view at all? And, did you have any thoughts on skills in regards to your dimensions? As always, play what you like

 

[Balesir]

Whilst I get your wider point I really must highlight that your DM is rubbish.

While acknowledging that you get the wider point, my issue with the "DM is rubbish" argument is that what you are essentially saying is "Yes, it should work like that, but for some reason that should not be actually written into the rules but should be a rule every DM should invent for themselves, should such an in-game situation arise". I don't get that; if the orcs in that situation should react in certain specific ways, why not make that determination a function of the rules by which orcs are run?

On what magic can do but non-magic can't: while I agree that some actions have a very heavy "magical" flavour while others are more "non-magical", I think the only way that non-spellcasting classes will ever get anything even approaching the narrative power of spellcasters is if you are prepared to relinquish the strict, check the dice at every point of uncertainty, physical process following model of "mundane" actions. If prompting reactions, evoking emotions and body-language trickery are not things that non-spellcasters can gain mastery of (when spellcasters can, because magic) then any hope of balanced options in the interactive sphere (including combat and negotiation) is a pipe dream.