Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[billd91]

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.

I have to agree, and I like the M&M hero point system. The difference here is that the complication that yields the hero point should be something that fits into the appropriate narrative - needing to give up pursuing the hulking Crush because you need to rescue innocent bystanders from the collapsing building, having to get ace reporter Lucretia Loomis (a friend of the PC) out of harms way as she pursues her story, having to rescue kid sidekick Hostage Lad from the Questioner's thugs, or being too slow to catch neo-Nazi villain, the Gauleiter, as he uses one of his many one-shot escape devices to fly away and leaving his underlings holding the bag yet again. Hitting a wall of "No" without a decent in-character, in-genre reason would be extremely unsatisfying. Maybe even irritating.

Now, with the AD&D module Descent into the Depths of the Earth and its limitations on teleport, I might say that the ley lines or magnetic forces that the teleport magic relies on are oddly curved this deep, preventing you from teleporting more than x miles without making a DC 35 caster level check. That neatly prevents teleporting very far and provides a genre-friendly reason for it (even if it is kind of a BS one off the cuff).

 

[Starfox]

...and if that genre-friendlr reason was retconned, you give the player a hero point. A good GM can always find a genre-friendly reason.

 

[sheadunne]

I don't think you can talk about narrative in D&D without looking at what 4e tried, even if its not a direction you want to end up.

Take a fighter for instance. One thing we expect her to be able to do is prevent enemies from targeting her allies. This could be achieved partially in 3x by taking certain feats that either allowed the fighter to attack those who tried to slip by or forced enemies to attack the fighter instead. 4e gave the fighter the ability to mark enemies which encourages enemies to attack the fighter instead or receive a penalty. These are examples of a fighter gaining narrative control. The Fighter has changed the narrative in the same way the wizard uses wall of force.

Think of it as the DM saying, scary monster x attacks the wizard. The fighter changes the narrative by saying no, scary monster x attacks me instead. That's narrative control. It's the character's ability to change the narrative through use of abilities.

Perhaps these could be tied to skills. Having x number of ranks in intimidate unlocks your ability to force an enemy to attack you instead, with a successful skill check or saving throw.

Anyway, that's what I think of when I think of balancing caster and martial narrative control elements. The ability to change the fiction through the use of character resources.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

Here are some comments that Ron Edwards made about balance, linking it to different playstyles:

Overall

1. Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what?
   
   
2. Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being used. Also, "Fair" generally means, "What I want."
   
   
3. Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or Effectiveness + Resource only?
   
   
4. Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has nothing to do with their abilities/oomph?
   
   
5. Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather, with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it stops) is distributed among the members of the group?

They can't all be balance at once.


Within Gamist play

1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, then that's fine.
   
   
2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken.
   
   
3. Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced.
   
   
4. In direct contrast to #1, "balance" can also mean that everyone is subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength, regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels & Trolls is all about this kind of play.)
   
   
5. The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking.

Within Simulationist play

I am forced to speak historically here, in reference to existing and widespread Simulationist approaches, not to any potential or theoretical ones. So think of Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and Rolemaster as you read the next part.

1. One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the Currency-based relationship among the components of a character: Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame. That's right - we're not talking about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the interacting components of a single character. I realize that this sounds weird. Check back in the Sim essay to see how important these within-character interactions can be in this mode of play.
   
   
2. And, completely differently, "balance" is often invoked as an anti-Gamist play defense, specifically in terms of not permitting characters to change very much relative to one another, as all of them improve. This is, I think, the origin of "everyone gets a couple EPs at the end of each session" approach, as opposed to "everyone gets different EPs on the basis of individual performance."
   
   
3. Rules-enforcement in terms of Effectiveness, which is why GURPS has point-total limits per setting. Note that heavy layering renders this very vulnerable to Gamist Drift.

Within Narrativist play

This gets a little tricky because I can't think of a single coherent Narrativist game text in which balance as a term is invoked as a design or play feature, nor any particular instance of play I've been involved in which brought the issue up. But I'm pretty sure that it's a protagonism issue.

1. "Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness component.
   
   
2. Balance of Power is relevant to all forms of play, but it strikes me as especially testy in this mode.

At least some of these ideas of balance seem relative to "narrative space": Overall-4, Gamist-2 and Narrativist-1. These are also at least partly related - you can balance "strategies", for instance, by giving martial PCs more "meta" to compensate for their lack of magic (compare to Hawkeye vs Thor); and equal mechanical capabilities by balancing effectiveness, resources and meta may help encourage balance of screen time (eg the wizards do this via their magic, the fighters via their meta).

 

[pemerton]

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.

You might be interested in systems like HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling, which do exactly this.

Marvel Heroic RP also comes very close, and I would argue that Burning Wheel is quite close too (though it does have optional distinctive and sometimes Byzantine sub-systems).

 

[pemerton]

the complication that yields the hero point should be something that fits into the appropriate narrative

This is no different in Marvel Heroic RP, I would assume in other Cortex games, and I would assume in FATE.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You might be interested in systems like HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling, which do exactly this.

Marvel Heroic RP also comes very close, and I would argue that Burning Wheel is quite close too (though it does have optional distinctive and sometimes Byzantine sub-systems).

Being somewhat cash-strapped at the moment, I haven't bought any rpg products in a while. But some of those are on my list to check out, yes.

To me, balancing everyone's narrative control is not the overarching goal in this kind of unified approach, but it does seem like it would be a consequence of it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You might be interested in systems like HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling, which do exactly this.

Marvel Heroic RP also comes very close, and I would argue that Burning Wheel is quite close too (though it does have optional distinctive and sometimes Byzantine sub-systems).

I'd have named Fate Core here as well. (And it's pay-what-you-like meaning that you can download it now and then only pay if you actually like it).

I have to agree, and I like the M&M hero point system. The difference here is that the complication that yields the hero point should be something that fits into the appropriate narrative - needing to give up pursuing the hulking Crush because you need to rescue innocent bystanders from the collapsing building, having to get ace reporter Lucretia Loomis (a friend of the PC) out of harms way as she pursues her story, having to rescue kid sidekick Hostage Lad from the Questioner's thugs, or being too slow to catch neo-Nazi villain, the Gauleiter, as he uses one of his many one-shot escape devices to fly away and leaving his underlings holding the bag yet again.

That sounds almost exactly like a Fate compel (although in Fate you can spend a fate point of your own to turn down a compel - not that many do).

 

[Umbran]

Define "narrative space" - well it is very hard to give a definition that is both precise and which we can all agree on.

All the more reason to do it, though. And honestly, what we really needed was what *you* were thinking, as it is your concept in the OP that we're discussing. I think you did a good job here.

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.

I think that's pretty clear and lucid - it gives us some idea of the scope, and gets it out and away from Forgisms (which I personally find channel people's thoughts too strongly these days). So, thank you!

 

[Umbran]

That sounds almost exactly like a Fate compel (although in Fate you can spend a fate point of your own to turn down a compel - not that many do).

Yes, it does sound pretty much exactly like a FATE compel (and I'm a big fan of FATE these days).

Another interesting enhancements to a game I've seen was in the Cortex-based game, "Leverage". For those who don't know it, it is based on a TV show of the same name - a team of five characters pull off some Ocean's-11-style capers and confidence games to do good. In the TV series, there's a clear notion that each character has a niche, and that in capers, you can't have all five characters hanging around the action all the time - some times the scene focuses on one or two characters, with the rest not present.

So, what do you do with those other characters/players, who aren't there? In normal games, they'd have pretty much no narrative space. Not so in Leverage. In the TV show, they will have a character approach or get involved in a conflict such that the viewer cannot fathom how they'll resolve it, but somehow through coincidence they just happen to have the right event happen just at that moment, or they'll just happen to have a resource on hand, or the like. In the show, they then give you a flashback (usually in black-and-white, rather than color) showing how that was arranged by the team. So, in the game, as a player sees a conflict developing, they can *retroactively* make a skill check to help the other PC, so long as they can justify it - "Dude, don't forget that fake Sheriff's badge I gave you earlier!"

Thus, even if you aren't the focus of current action, it pays the players to pay attention to the scene, and to interject assistance (and thus have narrative space). This would not work for all genres, but is very clever, regardless.