Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[MJS]

This is a very interesting discussion, in that despite reading it, there are people like myself who have no idea what the problem is. Not to a lack of reading comprehension, but something else.
What it looks like to me is bad DMing, and munchkinism what with wanting spell abilities the DM can't alter. BS to that.
All classes and players can, and should, alter the flow of the story. Isn't that how its made? Not by DM railroad, but by how the players decided to interact with the world?
Its the DMs job to ensure all PCs get enough limelight, and relevance, to what is going on, if thats what they crave.
But how about this as well - if you want more "narrative power", play your character more interestingly. Stop looking for mechanics to solve something that isn't broken.

 

[Umbran]

But how about this as well - if you want more "narrative power", play your character more interestingly. Stop looking for mechanics to solve something that isn't broken.

First off, please allow for the fact that with many different ways to play, what works for you may not work for someone else. What looks like "not broken" to you may be a major issue to someone else.

The problem isn't about "play your character more interestingly". The issue isn't about being interesting internally, but having ability to interact with the world. The number of people who are satisfied with playing an entirely internal game, where they don't really have impact on how events unfold, but instead just react to the unfolding of events, are small. Most folks like to be able to help steer the ship, so to speak.

 

[sheadunne]

Well then it seems like the first step in creating a fighter that has more narrative tools would be to increase his access to skills... right?

In my understanding, skills allow a player to participant in the DMs narrative, but not to shape the narrative themselves.

Take the climb skill for instance. The DMs narrates that there is a wall to climb. The climb skill allows the character to participate in the narrative. They get to climb the wall. But what if the character wants to change the narrative by saying that there is no wall to climb? something that a wizard character could certainly do through a number of spell options.

 

[Umbran]

There's another aspect to this, though. The fighter is supposed to be better at affecting that particular narrative than other characters, which gets into questions of the degree to which a character can influence a narrative versus how many narratives they can influence at all. If you put that on a graph, a fighter has very little measure on the X axis, but is very high on the Y.

Yes, and some players are fine with that. For example, some players may play a fighter and say, "Wake me up when a fight starts." And certainly, if as a player you're happy not doing much when there's no fight going on, then there's nothing broken here.

If, however, you get bored under such circumstances, the classic Fighter is a bit of a problem for you. You don't play a game to feel bored, right?

This is why I keep using the term "relevance". I honestly think that most players don't need to be the best of the best at everything. But, most players at least want to be able to contribute in most types of scenes. They want to at least be able to be relevant most of the time. This goes double if they already feel someone else is stealing their thunder in their primary niche. If I am not the best fighter, and I am the worst at everything else, how satisfied will I be as a player?

 

[Imaro]

In my understanding, skills allow a player to participant in the DMs narrative, but not to shape the narrative themselves.

Take the climb skill for instance. The DMs narrates that there is a wall to climb. The climb skill allows the character to participate in the narrative. They get to climb the wall. But what if the character wants to change the narrative by saying that there is no wall to climb? something that a wizard character could certainly do through a number of spell options.

See I guess I view this differently. In both instances of the narrative... the wall is an obstacle which must be overcome, both characters have the potential power to create a narrative where they overcome said obstacle. Now I understand the way in which this obstacle is overcome is relevant to the fiction... but then I think a mundane solution for the fighter and a reality bending one for the wizard are pretty much spot on for the archetypes they represent, so I don't see why a fighter should be able to overcome the obstacle (and thus change the narrative) in the exact same way a wizard would... say by making the wall dissappear. Now in all honesty a fighter of a sufficient level could also batter down the wall, though this would probably be a sub-optimal way to overcome the obstacle... but then so would climbing it if the wizard didn't have magical aid.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, and some players are fine with that. For example, some players may play a fighter and say, "Wake me up when a fight starts." And certainly, if as a player you're happy not doing much when there's no fight going on, then there's nothing broken here.

If, however, you get bored under such circumstances, the classic Fighter is a bit of a problem for you. You don't play a game to feel bored, right?

Right, but under those circumstances it is, as you said, that the fighter is a bit of a problem "for you." The issue in that case could justifiably be considered to be that the player simply made a bad choice in picking a fighter to play, rather than something needing to be done because the fighter class isn't serving non-fighting interests.

This is why I keep using the term "relevance". I honestly think that most players don't need to be the best of the best at everything. But, most players at least want to be able to contribute in most types of scenes. They want to at least be able to be relevant most of the time. This goes double if they already feel someone else is stealing their thunder in their primary niche. If I am not the best fighter, and I am the worst at everything else, how satisfied will I be as a player?

This gets back to what I was saying previously, that there's an idea that it's simply better to have a character with some degree of narrative options in most kinds of narratives, rather than someone who has a very large degree of options in one narrative area, and very few in all others. Now, the idea of "good at most things, but the best at nothing" is certainly a viable option, and a popular one, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily the better option. Some people do want specialization at the cost of broad options.

Moreover, if we view these two choices for a characters' style of narrative options as being the ends of the spectrum - and given that the game includes both of these, and several option in between - why is there necessarily a problem with the fighter? It's there for those that want it, and can be avoided by those that don't. If people feel that playing a fighter isn't giving them enough narrative options for combat that's commensurate with the lack of options elsewhere, doesn't this mean that they've either made a bad decision in playing a fighter, or that the fighter's narrative combat options are being comparatively de-valued by other classes that have near-comparable narrative combat options?

 

[Manbearcat]

See I guess I view this differently. In both instances of the narrative... the wall is an obstacle which must be overcome, both characters have the potential power to create a narrative where they overcome said obstacle. Now I understand the way in which this obstacle is overcome is relevant to the fiction... but then I think a mundane solution for the fighter and a reality bending one for the wizard are pretty much spot on for the archetypes they represent, so I don't see why a fighter should be able to overcome the obstacle (and thus change the narrative) in the exact same way a wizard would... say by making the wall dissappear. Now in all honesty a fighter of a sufficient level could also batter down the wall, though this would probably be a sub-optimal way to overcome the obstacle... but then so would climbing it if the wizard didn't have magical aid.

What if, say for instance, a player had a feature for their character called "As if it wasn't there..." The player plays this trump card and then gets 2 benefits:

1 - The wall (obstacle, etc) isn't there in a way that interposes itself between the character and its objective. It moves from adversity to mere color.

2 - Authorial rights to determine how this wall/obstacle has moved from adversity to mere color. Perhaps the character knows of a secret passage/tunnel to circumvent it. Perhaps they have a guard that owes them a favor and the guard then smuggles the PCs through the gate to the other side in a covered wagone. Perhaps the character knows the patrol schedule and perfectly executes an infiltration (for the whole group) over the wall.

 

[Umbran]

Moreover, if we view these two choices for a characters' style of narrative options as being the ends of the spectrum - and given that the game includes both of these, and several option in between - why is there necessarily a problem with the fighter?

Because while a few players may want to choose solely based on style of narrative options, I suspect for most players character choice is a multi-dimensional thing. Where it sits on the style of narrative options is one variable. The fluff, style, power source (the flavor of how it delivers its options - the flavor) also matters.

In a perfect world, we'd have each class able to cover all the breadth of narrative options - you could have a fighter that with a laser-focus on fights, sacrificing all else, and you could have a fighter who was still primarily there to be a sword-arm, but also had some other options in social or other realms. Interestingly, clerics and wizards to tend to have more flexibility - you can create a utilitarian wizard, or a combat-focused one, largely depending on your spell choice. We don't have that same flexibility among the warriors.

 

[Imaro]

What if, say for instance, a player had a feature for their character called "As if it wasn't there..." The player plays this trump card and then gets 2 benefits:

1 - The wall (obstacle, etc) isn't there in a way that interposes itself between the character and its objective. It moves from adversity to mere color.

2 - Authorial rights to determine how this wall/obstacle has moved from adversity to mere color. Perhaps the character knows of a secret passage/tunnel to circumvent it. Perhaps they have a guard that owes them a favor and the guard then smuggles the PCs through the gate to the other side in a covered wagone. Perhaps the character knows the patrol schedule and perfectly executes an infiltration (for the whole group) over the wall.

So the player would circumvent the obstacle... differently, I have no issue with that (with the possible exception of it being automatically successful). I might be missing the point here. Would this "As if it wasn't there..." card have any of the limitations a spell might, like not working in an anti-magic field, failling if it doesn't overcome SR or on a successful save, perhaps not being taken because a different power was chosen, and so on? Because as it stands it seems way more powerful than any spell.

As too the authorial rights... I'm of a mixed mind on this. Magic doesn't give full authorial control as you are presenting it in number 2, spells have specific rules and limitations surrounding them, but what you are proposing doesn't. I'm also not sure all players should be allowed this type of freedom since it has no boundaries or limitations and there will be players who use that to push the game in a direction that may be fun for them but not necessarily for the DM or even the other players at the table.

 

[Alzrius]

Because while a few players may want to choose solely based on style of narrative options, I suspect for most players character choice is a multi-dimensional thing. Where it sits on the style of narrative options is one variable. The fluff, style, power source (the flavor of how it delivers its options - the flavor) also matters.

But that problem only exists if you look at the fighter in a vacuum. What's wrong with having the fighter serving the aforementioned "few players" you mentioned, while everyone else who doesn't want that level mastery for a single style of narrative options, but more options in other narratives, chooses a different class?

In a perfect world, we'd have each class able to cover all the breadth of narrative options - you could have a fighter that with a laser-focus on fights, sacrificing all else, and you could have a fighter who was still primarily there to be a sword-arm, but also had some other options in social or other realms.

I guess I just see us as already having the options you're outlining, simply in the form of other classes (e.g. rangers, bards, etc).

Interestingly, clerics and wizards to tend to have more flexibility - you can create a utilitarian wizard, or a combat-focused one, largely depending on your spell choice. We don't have that same flexibility among the warriors.

Yes, but is that a failing among warriors, or a gratuitous level of ability among the spellcasters? There's no consensus on the issue, as there are strong arguments both ways - hence, there's some credit for the argument that spellcasters need to have their options dialed back, rather than have the warriors' options increased.