Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Tuft]

Well, that can be easily added back in.

I should have said "core D&D", shouldn't I?

Nice motivator illustration in that link, btw.

 

[Aenghus]

As far as I recall from our trial 4E campaign, there was no way to declare immunity to CaGI, other than rule zero...

Yes, but the philosphy of 4e isn't to pin down powers as working in a single hard-coded way - they specify effects, suggest but don't enforce the typical appearance of the powers use with flavour text, and leave it up to the referee, player concerned and the group in general to come up with a plausible explanation for how the power worked.

For instance, in the case of automata, instinctively feeling a momentary flaw in the programming of the automata. making their movement predictable, and exploiting it might explain a use of Come and Get It. As for an explanation why this can't be repeated, the real reason is that it's boring to spam a power, which is why Come and get it is an encounter power. The group can come up with an in-game explanation why the power can only be used once an encounter if they want, some won't bother. And some players and referees dislike powers like this for various reasons, while others really like them.

Which is a problem. The more situational a power is the less attractive it is. If my feeling as a player is "this power will seldom if work on any important NPC, the referee will always make an excuse or hike the difficulty up till it's likely to fail" I'm much less likely to pick that power.

The problem with infinitely repeatable powers with a low chance of success is that either they traps for the unwary, underpowered or no better than improvised actions, or they are overpowered when successful, and encourage the player to hyperspecialise and keep mashing the boring but effective power button (e.g. trippers in 3.x).

That said, I'm not a gambler and prefer reliability to swinginess, YMMV.

 

[Imaro]

From previous examples, I gathered that *asking* the DM for "what small hard object is there lying around that I can drop on an opponents head?" is *not* narrative control, while positing that specifically a flowerpot is there *is* narrative control.The flowerpot may have been a trivial example, but its the principle I am asking for here. The cauldron of oil and the SMG were more drastic, especially the latter in a fantasy campaign... The three questions you ask: fallible, vetoable, and extent are basically what I also want to know about.

First let me say this is a good all around post that highlights some of the reservations I have about these types of mechanics... Though for some the simple answer is "make sure everyone is on the same page"... I think that's sort of a cop out when it comes to these types of things. How far and how much leeway do the players get? I know in the LoA version of Fate, it is still up to the GM whether an added detail is acceptable or not but then is that narrative "control" on the part of the player if it can be vetoed by the DM or even table consensus?Let me also state for the record that I do not subscribe to the belief that players will inherently stay within the genre, thematic, etc. boundaries when given abilities like these. Will some? Yes. Will all... I honestly don't believe so, I think some players will push (and even snap) the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable and it is for those players mechanics (including limitations and balances/checks)need to be defined.

Yes, to me changing that the orcs never were automata would gel with what I've previously been told about Narrative control. This to me sounds like an extremely sandboxed game. I do like myself a good improvisational game as a GM, but I'd have a hard time if one of the pillars of the background story got torn out under me (and I know one of my players who'd have *serious* trouble with things being redefined on the fly!). It would be hard to introduce a story of automata infiltrating the world if the fighters taunt would make them *not-automata* in every combat encounter...

I think this raises some important issues as well... First, is the fighter making them non-automata a permanent thing... and if so how does that interact with say anothe player abilities that may affect automata specifically and thus wants them to be automata? Second how is consistency maintained if things are constantly mutable and being changed?

 

[Tuft]

Rules for morale certainly exist in 1e. They seem to have dropped off the radar somewhere between then and Pathfinder.

My 1E DM was a simulationist in extremis. When he started his campaign he started bt defining how many critters of each level there were on each hex of the map, and then defined how far each level were willing to migrate to nearest population center...

What that in practice meant, was that as we rose in level, we did not meet many high-level opponents, but simply more and more low-level ones. Since he gladly ignored morale, they simply tromped against us in giant columns down the dungon corridors, just to be ground to death on the fighter's swords. It was kind of a fantasy zulu war - spears against machine guns... hundreds upon hundreds of low-level orcs...

The same DM later repeated the same thing in Shadowrun. For some reason rentacop security guards were willing to run mindlessly into machinegun fire to die in scores upon scores... In the end it started to make me feel more and more queasy.

 

[N'raac]

This is making me confused. To me, all examples of non-magical narritive control *have* been about changing the backstory. When you posit that there is a flowerpot on the windowsill, the flowerpot *has always been there* - i.e. you change the past to change the present. When you posit that the you can sneak past the guards because they've been out all night carousing and are passed out with a hangover, you not only change the backstory, but also affect how disciplined said guards appear and their general mien and reputation.

That question's not directed at me, but if I might weigh in...

To me, the "there is a flowerpot on the windowsill" example can fit four categories:

(a) The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it is plausible for a flowerpot to be there and the GM's backstory is not contradicted by there being a flowerpot. While it was not planned to be there, it was also not planned not to be there. Thus, no contradiction. This might come up in play without mechanics as "is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?", and the GM says "no" or "sure, why not?"

(b) The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is contradicted by there being a flowerpot. Maybe, unknown to the players, the apartment's occupant is very allergic to most plants, which is an important investigative clue or plot point later. So we now have the question of "GM Veto" based on his knowledge of the bbackstory, or whether his backstory can be overruled by this player ability. This might come up in play without mechanics as "is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?", and the GM says "no" or, perhaps, "no flowerpot, but there is a knick-knack which looks fairly heavy and solid".

(c) The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is contradicted by there being a flowerpot or anything similar. If the background says the furnishings are spartan, no decorations, etc., as that's related to the occupant, then the answer would be "no" absent a narrative control ability that can alter the GM's backstory unilaterally. In that case, the GM has to revise anything that was impacted by that spartan outlook, or come up on the spot with something that could be there without contradicting the background.

(d) The contents of the room have been described in enough detail to establish there is no flowerpot on the windowsill. The only way the player can "find" that desired object is to revise the previously established facts. Now we are revising an already known fact. I think that is where pemerton would clearly draw the line - it has already been established in the game that there is no flowerpot, and that can't be revised.

Another example: If it has already been established that my character was home-schooled, no one can later introduce the backstory that I met some character in a boarding school we both attended, but if his schooling has not been established in play, then either home schooling or boarding school are open to be established in play.

The question this leaves, for me, is what level of establishe backstory is needed. If it has not been established in play (only in the GM's notes) that the orcs are really automatons, can the player "force" them not to be automatons, requiring the GM to modify the rest of the scenario, or even game world, to accomodate this, or can his greater knowledge of backstory trump the player's narrative control? That gets to the "vetoable" aspect.

For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.

I can only say "not in my games". I often have notes on the point at which the Bad Guys will flee, surrender, etc. That can, however, be influenced by in-game events. If the cowardly Orcs would surrender if, say, a quarter of their number were casualties (or, perhaps, they do not outnumber the PC's at least 3 to 1), but the PC's charge in yelling "No prisoners - slay them all!" that will change "surrender" to "flight if possible; desparate fighting otherwise". Similarly, the PC's might have a reputation for killing the wounded (deserved or not, but derived from campaign events) which would change the Orcs' approach if they are aware of that reputation.

Funny how so many GM's who complain their PC's never consider flight or surrender play every enemy as a frothing fanatic who will try to beat the PC's with the bloody stumps where his arms once were, never considering any tactic other than fighting to his last breath.

 

[Mike Eagling]

It is also worth noting that some might say that hit points cover morale.

Yes. Without wishing to reignite the nature of hit points debate they arguably include an element of morale, if we subscribe to a "not meat" model.

However, I think that the notion of representing psychological factors with explicit mechanics is an interesting and underexplored idea. Real people are sometimes overcome with emotions to the extent that they lose their ability to act voluntarily, or even perform some actions involuntarily; D&D characters aren't often in this position.

Indeed. Again, 1e has rules for NPC reactions. They're a hodge-podge of rules, to be fair, but they're still in the RAW.

Applying psychological effects to PCs is more problematic. IME players are often reluctant for their characters to behave in a less than courageous manner--even in Actor stance--despite that being the most likely outcome in a given situation. They can and do retreat when it suits them but they're not so keen to have that forced upon them. I'll admit having been guilty of that myself, on occasion.

The sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu are a (somewhat blunt) mechanic which enable this kind of effect. I recently read an article on the subject that was more D&D-centric but can't for the life of me remember where it was, off hand.

And yes, noted as others quickly posted that older versions of D&D did have morale and there are some takes on it that aren't in current core rules but are out there.

Thanks for the link

 

[Mike Eagling]

My 1E DM was a simulationist in extremis. When he started his campaign he started bt defining how many critters of each level there were on each hex of the map, and then defined how far each level were willing to migrate to nearest population center...

What that in practice meant, was that as we rose in level, we did not meet many high-level opponents, but simply more and more low-level ones. Since he gladly ignored morale, they simply tromped against us in giant columns down the dungon corridors, just to be ground to death on the fighter's swords. It was kind of a fantasy zulu war - spears against machine guns... hundreds upon hundreds of low-level orcs...

The same DM later repeated the same thing in Shadowrun. For some reason rentacop security guards were willing to run mindlessly into machinegun fire to die in scores upon scores... In the end it started to make me feel more and more queasy.

Ouch! Sounds like his simulation was lacking in certain areas

 

[Ahnehnois]

Indeed. Again, 1e has rules for NPC reactions. They're a hodge-podge of rules, to be fair, but they're still in the RAW.

Not arguing that. They're not present in the core of PF or 4e, which are usually what we're discussing at ENW.

Applying psychological effects to PCs is more problematic. IME players are often reluctant for their characters to behave in a less than courageous manner--even in Actor stance--despite that being the most likely outcome in a given situation. They can and do retreat when it suits them but they're not so keen to have that forced upon them. I'll admit having been guilty of that myself, on occasion.

That is true. It's a fine line. If you want to simulate the effects of combat, but allow the players to feel they're controlling they're characters, those two ends can conflict.

The sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu are a (somewhat blunt) mechanic which enable this kind of effect.

Indeed. It is very blunt, but it is also reality-based and makes clear to the players that sometimes, as with real people, characters are not in control of their own actions.

 

[Mike Eagling]

Not arguing that. They're not present in the core of PF or 4e, which are usually what we're discussing at ENW.

I didn't think you were

Indeed. It is very blunt, but it is also reality-based and makes clear to the players that sometimes, as with real people, characters are not in control of their own actions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of CoC and have no qualms about the sanity rules. I personally think there should be more of this kind of thing in RPGs.

 

[Tuft]

That is true. It's a fine line. If you want to simulate the effects of combat, but allow the players to feel they're controlling they're characters, those two ends can conflict.

Indeed. It is very blunt, but it is also reality-based and makes clear to the players that sometimes, as with real people, characters are not in control of their own actions.

This is one other important aspect where the perception of magical and non-magical differ. I know players who would have no problem being hit with a magical fear effect, but would balk att having to play out being hit with a good Intimidate skill roll.

Above I collected three important questions from [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]:
* Fallability?
* Vetoability?
* Extent?

To this I would like to add a fourth:
* Symmetry?

Meaning "What symmetry should there be between a PC affecting an NPC and the reverse? (Not to mention PC vs PC and NPC vs NPC...)"