Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Ahnehnois]

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.

A lot of that I think is just the culture of the game and the expectations one has going in. If I'm going to play D&D, I expect to control my character, and I expect him to be very effective at most things he would try to do. If I sign up for CoC, I expect that my character may lose his mind and I expect that my character will routinely fail and be ineffective.

Trying to convince D&D players that their character lost his turn because the violence around him caused him to throw up is an uphill battle, and one that may or may not be a good thing to pursue, depending on one's perspective.

 

[pemerton]

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.

In the post of mine to which this is a reply, I talked about changing the known backstory. As-yet undeclared or unauthored backstory is fair game.

So if the GM has already described the bare windowsills of the monk's Spartan cells, no flower pots. You'll have to try for a loose brick instead. (Which, in a system based on die rolls rather than auto-success from limited resources, might be a harder DC.)

But if no one has described the window sill yet, and if we haven't already established in play that these monks aschew all adornment in their cells, then a flower pot is fair game. Of course that might move things in a different direction from what the GM was anticipating - that's the point of narrative control in the hands of the players!

I think [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] spelled some of this out in more detail.

 

[N'raac]

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 @N'raac:
* 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...)"

I think these are all quite valid questions, and the symmetry issue is a very real one. It's odd that players accept, if they want to be resistant to magical fear, the character needs good will saves, whether from class, WIS and/or feats, class abilities, etc., but non-magical fear? They can have a 6 WIS, poor will saves, no bonuses from class, race, etc. but their PC should be impossible to intimidate because they say so.

My preference is symmetry. You want resistance/immunity, dedicate character resources within the rules to get there, under the same resource constraints applicable to NPCs. You want blanket immunity because "my character wouldn't do that", then the NPC's have the same right to immunity if the GM thinks the characte wouldn't do that.

If we want characters in general to be heroic and courageous, then the DC's to make anyone/thing behave otherwise should be raised accordingly.

In the post of mine to which this is a reply, I talked about changing the known backstory. As-yet undeclared or unauthored backstory is fair game.

So if the GM has already described the bare windowsills of the monk's Spartan cells, no flower pots. You'll have to try for a loose brick instead. (Which, in a system based on die rolls rather than auto-success from limited resources, might be a harder DC.)

But if no one has described the window sill yet, and if we haven't already established in play that these monks aschew all adornment in their cells, then a flower pot is fair game. Of course that might move things in a different direction from what the GM was anticipating - that's the point of narrative control in the hands of the players!

I think @N'raac spelled some of this out in more detail.

All of which matches my interpretation of your comments. One question not answered above: the GM has not describe the bare, unadorned cell yet, but it is established in his setting notes that it is bare and unadorned. The player announces his search for a flowerpot before the GM gets to that aspect of the description. Do the GM notes override, or does the player get his flowerpot? If the latter, should the player interrupt the flow to get what he wants (eg. "We open the door - I call an armory filled with magical weapons behind it!")? How much leeway does the GM get to override player narrative control based on things he knows that the players don't?

 

[pemerton]

One question not answered above: the GM has not describe the bare, unadorned cell yet, but it is established in his setting notes that it is bare and unadorned. The player announces his search for a flowerpot before the GM gets to that aspect of the description. Do the GM notes override, or does the player get his flowerpot? If the latter, should the player interrupt the flow to get what he wants (eg. "We open the door - I call an armory filled with magical weapons behind it!")? How much leeway does the GM get to override player narrative control based on things he knows that the players don't?

Well, in a game based on narrational authority of the sort we're talking about here, the GM probably shouldn't have that sort of detail in his/her notes. That's a bit of a blunt way to put it, but the basic idea is that the GM should only establish important reveals - stuff that matters. In the typical campaign the presence or absence of flowerpots probaby doesn't satisfy that criterion.

In all the games I'm familiar with that utilise these sorts of mechanics, a table agreement on genre is important - so the GM can sketch a scene in a fairly straightforward way, relying on shared genre tropes to flesh things out in the players' minds; and so the players can exercise narrative authority of the sort we're talking about here without disrupting the shared fiction (at one point the Burning Wheel rulebook suggests "no beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet").

 

[Manbearcat]

As far as I can tell there are a few fundamental disconnects going on here that are clouding the issue of spellcaster breadth of conflict resolution power (and their corresponding ability to impose their will upon the narrative relative to their mundane counterparts) either being a non-issue or being able to be resolved GM-side. Some of all of these maybe carried by various participants.

1 - There is an implicit setting assumption of pervasive magic such that barkeeps, merchants, lords, and scoundrels alike all have a healthy dose of exposure to, and understanding of, magic. There appears to be an assumption that spellcasting PCs are in no way extraordinary, that all Kings and Councils will have a Court Mage, that all monstrous adversaries will have tangled with, survived, and learned to identify and strategically/tactically deal with spellcasting opponents.

2 - There is an assumption that GMs should have internalized the reality that their game should consist of an arms race or a rock/paper/scissors match with spellcasters (and somehow this ironically doesn't reveal that, if you must do this, and clearly you must as most modules make special note of their efforts to circumvent spellcaster plot derailment and encounter trivializing, that casters do in fact have more breadth, scope and potency of scene (re)framing). Further, there is an assumption that GMs who do not wish to adopt this adversarial approach to spellcasters have no experience with this type of GMing.

With respect to 1, I see a great many responses and interchanges just presupposing this and then subsequent incredulity when folks don't work from this presupposition and accept responses based off of this premise. (A) In my games, my spellcaster PCs are special. Magic is not so pervasive as to be common enough that most anyone would understand the myriad mysticism of a Charm spell. If the rules are agnostic on things, then I am not going to adopt an adversarial position, change my implied setting and suddenly start assuming that Court Mages are ever-accompanying all council members, that Bards are always traveling with merchants to chronicle their financial endeavors, that all innkeeps "know a thing or two about a thing or two (including magic)", etc. (B) Even if I accept the premise that magic is pervasive and PC spellcasters are not unique, I fundamentally do not accept that exposure to magic would make layfolk, and primitive monsters, and bourgeoise suddenly learned in the art such that they can reliably be expected to identify magical gestures, incantations and specific spells especially. We live in the information age, a vast technocracy where all that you could want to know is a point and click or an easy library excursion away. All of this available information and exposure to phenomena and your average person is utterly unlearned about their home plumbing infrastructure, the pitch of their roof, insurance policy provisions and exclusions (specifically homeowners and medical), how to change oil/brakes/air filter on their vehicle (all outrageously simple and considerably cost effective), how to cook more than a few dishes (if that), the proper maintenance schedule of their HVAC system, how to properly budget and account, and god help you if you ask them whether the Soviet Union or Italy was allied with the Allied Powers of WWII. These are ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL to your average person's existence. If this is true in the modern era (with all of the infrastructure and exposure in place to make it not so), then why in the world would we presuppose that layfolk, primitive monsters, and bourgeoise are arcane adepts (or at least functional). The only reason I could assume that is a gamist/pawn stance agenda that needs it in play to manage an arms race versus, and a rock/paper/scissors game with, PC spellcasters who predominate conflict resolution from mid to high level onward.

With respect to 2, I know myself personally (and assuredly many/most others) are extremely adept with, and considerably exposed to, classic Gygaxian Pawn Stance, Gamist 1e Dungeon Crawl GMing. I know every single trick in the book to challenge or outright "handle" spellcasters. And I also know just how many of the power plays expected in tournament play were utterly, utterly contingent upon having the correct spell in play (which is why groups generally defaulted to 6-8 PCs so spell-resource breadth was properly covered). Its great fun for that style of game. However, I don't want that in play in my standard, long-running campaigns. I don't like the fiction it creates, I don't like the muddled, genre hijinx that burgeons forth from it, I don't like trying to massage that genre with GM force after its gone pear-shaped (due to the clown shoes and spinnig bowties of a non-stop cavalcade of 10 ft pole prodding, ear monsters to stop listening at doors, drowning dungeons with decanters and jumping into haversacks for infiltration or damage avoidance), I don't like juggling the mental overhead that comes from the incoherent coupling of Gygaxian adversarial GMing with fiction-first, genre-logic GMing, and I don't like the table dynamic it induces twixt PC and GM. I'll take one or the other but not both simultaneously. I don't want haggling or table handling time over fiddly resource accounting (spell components) and I'm of the same mind with respect to serial accounting for granular units of time (with respect to spell durations) and GM-forced, contrived metagaming (not fiction-first, genre-logic...flat out gamist metagaming) of pressures to consistently prevent 15 MWD scenarios.

Beyond that, I see answers in this thread to common spellcaster issues that aren't just contrived, spellcaster-specifically, metagamed, adversarial approaches but they honestly just don't work out in play. "Why, if any of my Wizard PCs ever dared to consider flying off and scouting out the mountain by themself (while the Fighter et al climbs...slowly...and exposed), well they would learn their lesson the hard way as here comes a random encounter of wyverns (or whatever) to eat their lunch!!!..." Yeah, except if he's flying over the mountain to scout it out, he's assuredly invisible (possibly improved invis) and has something like hold monster/slow or some other SoS to end an encounter and potentially have his flying, bestial adversaries (which wouldn't have been able to see him in the first place) falling to their death after their failed (extremely poor) Will save/defense is bypassed. Then I see assumptions of heavily fortifying mundanes with large amounts of magic items (what absolutely must be vastly askew of WBL guidelines in order to get the derived numbers) while spellcasters having access to even a few of their items du jour (maybe a few scrolls and a wand or two...of which they can make and have PC build resources committed to making them so the GM doesn't even need to award them) is scoffed at. And then I see a proposed ruling of which if turned on its head would cause enormous problems at a table if deployed by a PC versus monsters; imagine a Druid PC casting a 6th level control spell on a pack of Giants and the Giants jumping on each others shoulders to cheesily, metagamily bypass the RAW and spirit of the spell (both the damage and movement portion...not even just one of the two control elements...both) via exploitation of encumbrance rules interfacing with the RAW loophole in the text of the 6th level control spell.

There are so many fundamental disconnects to get past that it seems pointless to even attempt to further converse on these issues. I expect our games wouldn't look terribly unfamiliar to each another but our table agendas and resultant expectations are worlds apart.

 

[N'raac]

1 - There is an implicit setting assumption of pervasive magic such that barkeeps, merchants, lords, and scoundrels alike all have a healthy dose of exposure to, and understanding of, magic. There appears to be an assumption that spellcasting PCs are in no way extraordinary, that all Kings and Councils will have a Court Mage, that all monstrous adversaries will have tangled with, survived, and learned to identify and strategically/tactically deal with spellcasting opponents.

I find various editions have moved magic from Mystery to Commodity. Wizards, for example, learn 2 new spells per level. Those must come from somewhere, but can at least be explained by Wizardly Research (ie innovative discovery, rather than learning the spell from someone who already knows it). But we then get the "MagicMart". The player wants more spells, so he goes out and gets some scrolls to learn from. The presumption that the Wizard has the right spell for every occasion implies ready access to such spells.

Are the commoners familiar with all this magic? Probably not, unless we've pushed this commoditization to an extreme. But who cares? The PC's opposition isn't typically a bunch of commoners anyway. It seems wholly reasonable to expect the PC's enemies will be as competent as they are (often, their major opponents are more experienced than they are), so assuming the PCs are the only ones aware of all of these tactics, strategies and spell combinations seems unreasonable to me.

If magic is rare and mysterious, and PC spellcasters are near-unique, how is it we can buy spellbooks, magical ink and even scrolls of any spell one can imagine (which are obviously well known enough for the PC to enquire about a scroll of that spell in the first place)? Where do those enchanted arms and armor, and other items that the opposition seems to have in abundance, come from?

A setting where magic is rare, mysterious and unknown seems fine to me, but that's not the baseline assumption in 3e, based on the ease of accessing magical objects, spells, etc. "Magic is rare, mysterious and unknown" and "Another +1 weapon - throw it in the Bag of Holding so we can sell it for another thousand gold back in town, and pay to upgrade Sir Rodney's magical battle axe to a +4 effective bonus. Hey, Rodney, have you gone over the price list and figured out what you want from your upgrade?" seem, somehow, less than consistent with one another.

I also expect our games wouldn't look terribly unfamiliar to each another - and that the martial characters aren't all quitting because the wizards are so much more powerful, useful, and fun to play.

 

[N'raac]

Well, in a game based on narrational authority of the sort we're talking about here, the GM probably shouldn't have that sort of detail in his/her notes. That's a bit of a blunt way to put it, but the basic idea is that the GM should only establish important reveals - stuff that matters. In the typical campaign the presence or absence of flowerpots probaby doesn't satisfy that criterion.

The flowerpots are a pretty high detail example. Of course, the GM might be aware that the occupant is a bizarre creature whose odd qualities include a "black thumb", such that plants wither and die if left in his presence, having flowerpots on his windowsill seems unlikely. Or if he is a disguised alien who has no need or desire for "decoration" and can't fathom why these earthlings do, so there are no extraneous objects on the windowsill.

The Orcish Automatons being forced to become Orcs vulnerable to mind-affecting Taunts is a much better example of GM knowledge which precludes a player desire for reasons they don't currently know.

For myself, "is there a flowerpot or something similar on the windowsill - I want to chuck it down on the climber's head", assuming no issues that would suggest there is, or is not, is simply resolved by a random chance, or just "no reason why not - sure, there is a flowerpot there". We don't need a feat to let the player request a flowerpot, or a points mechanism where there can be no flowerpot because he's spent all his Scenery Points for the day.

Nor am I sure it’s a good thing if the request for a flowerpot being denied automatically tells the players that the absence of a flowerpot is very significant. Maybe it is, though – it explains some of those quantum leaps of deduction often present in the source materials, as it focuses the players on the issues that are, in fact, relevant, and away from red herrings, where casual observers would never think about WHY that absence of flowerpots is significant, or what it might mean.

 

[Starfox]

Back home.

Read up on Forge. I did indeed mean Director stance (forge) when I said Author stance, and I meant either Actor or Author stance (forge) when I said Actor stance.

I have some comments on Forge and how it was presented, but I'm not sure this is the right place tho discuss such things. Besides, I'd be commenting on essays that are several years old, so I guess I'd be rolling open doors for doors already passed through.