Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Starfox]

In the Free Will and Story thread the discussion has turned to options for expanding the narrative space of classes other than spellcasters. I will include some quotes from that thread to start of a discussion here.

I think the important part to remember is that it's really not combat potency or skills that need balance, those are indeed a matter of character and campaign choices, but rather the narrative control elements that are primarily limited to casters. It's the utility of these classes that make balance an issue. Take for instance one of the most power narrative spells out there, teleport. This simple spell (or that variations that clerics and druids get), allows the character to bypass the narrative the DM has laid out in the game. You must travel the misty road to the tower of blah blah and do this important thing. The fighter shrugs and heads toward the road, it's his only option. The Wizard smirks and says haha to your narrative, I'm going to bypass all that and appear at the tower instead. Even spells like Speak with Dead, Rope Trick, Fly, Scrying, etc have profound effects on the narrative of the game. Now a practiced DM will have taken into account these elements, having played with them for possibly decades, but a inexperienced DM will be a bit flummoxed by them, as we all probably were the first time a group of players said, nah, we're going to bypass everything you created for tonight's game and jump right to the city across the sea.

I think where the fighter is concerned, there's definite room for improvement and resources for non-adventuring campaign activities like Paizo's Ultimate Campaign can help. I think characters viewed as weak could gain the Leadership feat as a bonus feat, maybe even a slightly improved version if they also establish a base of operations. That can reflect the wider contacts and followers they get while their spellcasting counterparts maintain their magical powers and pursue those activities. It makes sense that relatively mundane classes would attract more hangers-on, they're easier for the hoi polloi to identify with.

The game system could also include more social interaction and narrative orbackground resources feats. Set their pre-reqs to be friendlier to the martial or mundane classes. Fighters, with a lot of feat capacity, would pick them up easier than anyone else.

Also, the fighter should have 4 skill points and a broader skill list to reflect the wide variety of fighting man archetypes.

 

[Starfox]

Mutants and Masterminds has a nice little invention. Whenever the GM there feels he has to override some character's effect on the plot he can do so - at the 2expense" of handing out a hero point. These hero points can then be used in the game to gain a substantial but not completely domineering benefit. So if the DM wants the players to travel trough the dark woods, and the Wizard says "Lets teleport", the DM says something like "nice try" and hands out a hero point. This is a major improvement over just saying "Sorry, you can't, it would derail the plot" or even to finding some in-game retcon solution like inventing a country-wide teleport ward - the player is getting recognition that his action was intelligent and potentially workable, but can't be allowed to work for plot reasons. Of course, this is also railroading, so it must be used with care - different players' sensibilities here are different.

Something very similar should be possible to do with Fate Core's adventure theme descriptors (descriptor is not the term they use, but I can't recall the proper term on top of my head). If the descriptor for the adventure is "Dark forest", then any attempt to simply teleport past can be negated by invoking the descriptor.

I think characters viewed as weak could gain the Leadership feat as a bonus feat, maybe even a slightly improved version if they also establish a base of operations.

This is a good idea for campaigns in which Leadership works thematically. Influence on society gives an effect on the narrative similar to that of spells. And who are described as the nobility of most fantasy worlds? Fighters! But the DnD fighter doesn't have the tools to be a leader - neither skills or class abilities or an incentive to be charismatic. It also meshes into the dominion rules from 1E - fighters, clerics, and rogues got automatic followers at high levels, mages didn't.

Still, this will not suit all games. In a pure dungeon crawl, minions are not going to do you much good. Ok, in some old-school versions of dungeoneering it might, but spending followers as trap detectors or lantern bearers will cut into some players idea of heroism. Do we have other ideas for"narrative space" options for the martial classes?

Also, the fighter should have 4 skill points and a broader skill list to reflect the wide variety of fighting man archetypes.

Basically, all classes in 3E are skill starved. Yes, this includes Rogues. The one exception is Wizards, who with their short skill list and massive intelligence can splurge on knowledge skills. This is not good balance. Pathfinder ameliorated this somewhat by combining rogue skills so that fewer skills do the work of many, but the issue is still there. A standard house rule around here is to give all classes 2 extra skill points per level.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The M&M idea is similar to what BSG and Serenity do, and I'm a big fan of that philosophy. Let the DM give the players something as well as take away.

Basically, all classes in 3E are skill starved.

Agreed. The way skills are allocated was really cool when 3.0 came out, but it needs a major revision to give players more (as opposed to the direction many post-3e games have taken in giving them less). I'm not really in favor of skill consolidation, but I do think characters are skill-starved.

***

I think the big-picture solution to this issue (and a lot of others) is to put all action resolution under one structure. Instead of having one set of math for skills, another for attacks, another for saves, etc., have one mathematical standard. Instead of skills, feats, class abilities, powers, etc., have one way of distributing scalable abilities. The best existing approach, and the example I'll use, is 3e skills.

So, say that your attack roll, your save, your diplomacy, and your magic were all represented by a skill bonus, which you paid skill points for, and which is rolled against a DC or an opposed roll. Then it becomes easier to balance the game (as opposed to trying to whac-a-mole problematic PC abilities).

Let's say that there's one skill for Diplomacy, and one for Enchantment. Clearly, the Enchantment skill can do things that Diplomacy cannot. But now you can look at them side by side. And you can change them as needed, so both are appealing game options, and both work in simulating what they're suppose to simulate. Maybe you shift the DC's to make it clear that it's easier to talk to people than to charm or compel them. Maybe you split Enchantment into multiple skills so casters pay more. Maybe you restrict access to those skills by requiring feats or other prerequisites. Maybe you limit the use of Enchantment per time through some quasi-Vancian model (knowing that you would never do that to Diplomacy). Maybe you have the magical abilities drain the caster's life force. There's all kinds of options.

You still have the basic reality that some skills can do things that are better than others. Just as Use Magic Device is better than Craft (Basketweaving). But you can make them at least as balanced as the existing skill system. It's clear what each skill can do and what the number next to it means. And who complains about that?

 

[billd91]

Basically, all classes in 3E are skill starved. Yes, this includes Rogues. The one exception is Wizards, who with their short skill list and massive intelligence can splurge on knowledge skills. This is not good balance. Pathfinder ameliorated this somewhat by combining rogue skills so that fewer skills do the work of many, but the issue is still there. A standard house rule around here is to give all classes 2 extra skill points per level.

I don't really agree that all classes in 3e are skill starved. Fighters and probably sorcerers and paladins, yes. But I think, ideally, you should have a situation in which a PC can't quite pay for all the skills they want because that encourages focusing a bit more and making choices. And, along with that, you need to include skills in which investment is useful to a point but maxing out on it is unnecessary. For example, Tumble in 3.5 benefits from investment until you reach the point you can auto-succeed moving in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity - then if you don't intend to go through your opponent's square, you can stop investing and focus on something else. Once you've got a comfortable level of success at appraising items, you can stop investing in that. And so on.

As far as knowledge spells and certain other skills go, I really think each class should offer one or more as freebies like what they did with Wild Empathy in the 3.5 revision. Back in 3.0, Wild Empathy was a skill that a lot of players probably called a skill tax considering it was a core ability of the druid and ranger classes. Folding it into a class ability was a good choice. I wouldn't mind seeing core class knowledges or even a few other skills being auto-invest skills, leaving the skill points available for more discretionary skills.

That said, if you wanted to push the game more into skill use territory (even making the attack bonus a skill), then one good way to offer a little more balance in that regard is to keep the skill ranks per level lower for full casters than non-casters. Non-casters would gain more access to the narrative benefits of skill use.

 

[Umbran]

I'm going to suggest that you're apt to get a more broad discussion of the topic if you define what you mean by "narrative space". The jargon may be a barrier to entry to an otherwise interesting discussion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't really agree that all classes in 3e are skill starved. Fighters and probably sorcerers and paladins, yes. But I think, ideally, you should have a situation in which a PC can't quite pay for all the skills they want because that encourages focusing a bit more and making choices.

I agree, and I still think the class are skill-starved. If you really open up the game and make most of the skills useful, even 8 is not enough.

And, along with that, you need to include skills in which investment is useful to a point but maxing out on it is unnecessary. For example, Tumble in 3.5 benefits from investment until you reach the point you can auto-succeed moving in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity - then if you don't intend to go through your opponent's square, you can stop investing and focus on something else. Once you've got a comfortable level of success at appraising items, you can stop investing in that. And so on.

That's kind of a problematic aspect of 3.X skills, IMO. There are de facto, but not explicit limits like this. To me, if you want to create a baseline for competence, you should do it as a standard. For example, you might be a master of Tumbling at, say +10. Past that point, skill bonuses might cost double, or there might be only highly specialized (or, perhaps, "epic") skill usages with higher DCs to strive for. And that same dynamic would apply to all skills.

As far as knowledge spells and certain other skills go, I really think each class should offer one or more as freebies like what they did with Wild Empathy in the 3.5 revision.

I'm on board with that. It became very clear to me in writing my own psionic classes using GR's skill-based system, it became very obvious that my pyro class needed to have the skill for pyrokinesis maxed, so I gave it as a class feature. And really, isn't the same thing true of a bard? Why do they have to spend some of their paltry 6 skill points on Perform?

I do, however, think that those should remain skills (in case other characters want access to, say, wild empathy); but the classes should just get free maxed ranks.

That said, if you wanted to push the game more into skill use territory (even making the attack bonus a skill), then one good way to offer a little more balance in that regard is to keep the skill ranks per level lower for full casters than non-casters. Non-casters would gain more access to the narrative benefits of skill use.

That is one way. Maybe magic skills just cost twice as much and have half the max, like cross-class skills in 3e. All that does is make it clear that magic is hard.

 

[billd91]

I'm on board with that. It became very clear to me in writing my own psionic classes using GR's skill-based system, it became very obvious that my pyro class needed to have the skill for pyrokinesis maxed, so I gave it as a class feature. And really, isn't the same thing true of a bard? Why do they have to spend some of their paltry 6 skill points on Perform?

I do, however, think that those should remain skills (in case other characters want access to, say, wild empathy); but the classes should just get free maxed ranks.

The bard really is the most notable current example of a class needing to invest in one particular skill to work. And in most cases, leaving it as a skill would also be ideal (though I think making wild empathy exclusive was the way to go with 3.5).

That is one way. Maybe magic skills just cost twice as much and have half the max, like cross-class skills in 3e. All that does is make it clear that magic is hard.

I may be spoiled with Pathfinder, but one skill point = one rank no matter if cross classed or not makes things a LOT easier. I'd be reluctant to give it up.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I may be spoiled with Pathfinder, but one skill point = one rank no matter if cross classed or not makes things a LOT easier. I'd be reluctant to give it up.

Yep. There are no free lunches. There, are, however, a variety of other ways of looking at balance.

 

[Starfox]

I'm going to suggest that you're apt to get a more broad discussion of the topic if you define what you mean by "narrative space". The jargon may be a barrier to entry to an otherwise interesting discussion.

Define "narrative space" - well it is very hard to give a definition that is both precise and which we can all agree on. I was hoping the above quotes would point the direction sufficiently.

I can try to begin a description - not a definition of narrative space. But I will need help for this.

Narrative space is a characters ability to affect the direction of the story, to introduce and interact meaningfully with plot elements, and to be an actor rather than a subject. What this means in practice varies enormously depending on context. In a tactical combat game, it is a lot about mechanical efficiency. In a more full role-playing game, it is closely related to camera time - how much attention you can get from the GM and other players.

Let me give an example from anime. It is very common in anime to have a "normal girl" as one of the main characters. All the other characters are fantastic aliens, magical princesses, star knights or whatever. But one (usually young and female) is not - she has no powers at all. Yet, this is somehow the most central character of all because of her relationship to the others, and because of her skills in areas such as cooking - because her skills are actually shown in camera, and the other characters are a lot worse at them. In a fight she is a mix between victim and comic relief, often with inspirational abilities. This character is the equal of the others despite being of a much lower "power level", because the camera gives her equal time and the other characters try and fail in her area of competence more than she tries and fails in theirs.

 

[Alzrius]

Mutants and Masterminds has a nice little invention. Whenever the GM there feels he has to override some character's effect on the plot he can do so - at the 2expense" of handing out a hero point. These hero points can then be used in the game to gain a substantial but not completely domineering benefit. So if the DM wants the players to travel trough the dark woods, and the Wizard says "Lets teleport", the DM says something like "nice try" and hands out a hero point. This is a major improvement over just saying "Sorry, you can't, it would derail the plot" or even to finding some in-game retcon solution like inventing a country-wide teleport ward - the player is getting recognition that his action was intelligent and potentially workable, but can't be allowed to work for plot reasons. Of course, this is also railroading, so it must be used with care - different players' sensibilities here are different.

I personally don't care for this idea at all. To me, answering a viable narrative action with a meta-game "you can't" is completely unsatisfying, even if it comes with a corresponding meta-game cookie. The answer to an imbalance of narrative control may be to dial back the narrative abilities of some of the stronger characters, but to do so with blatantly dissociated mechanics is not an answer I like.