Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Umbran]

In some respects I think the "problem" is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, I agree. How much the problem will manifest (if at all) will depend upon the playstyles and desires of all involved.

But if you ditch the vague phrasing "narrative space" and instead focus on a specific elements - like noncombat abilities for non-spellcasters - that is something where there is a clear difference.

Yes. However, if you have a game where everyone has the spotlight time they need, there's no call to make such adjustments, is there? The old saying is, "if it ain't broke (for you) don't fix it."

After all, it's not DMs who are criticizing fighters as "lacking noncombat options", it's players, right?

Well, a GM whose players are not having a good time could rightfully have a problem with it.

 

[Manbearcat]

After all, it's not DMs who are criticizing fighters as "lacking noncombat options", it's players, right?

For myself, with solely GM experience in D&D, I've had a problem with the composition of the game table during non-combat conflict resolution for as long as I can recall; eg spellcasters dictating results in that theater much closer to exclusively than I like.
I'm very hardened to that paradigm at this point. It forces mental overhead upon me to try to contrive situations where "push the spellcaster button" is not the most functional, fitting, and efficient output to the equation...and I've run so, so, so, so many games over the years and I'm just weary of it. And as I've moved away from it (with more parity amongst the classes with respect to out of combat resource breadth and potency), I've found (a) the mental overhead has been alleviated (freeing whatever resources committed to it for purposes I like far better), (b) my players are universally, and consistently, more engaged from conflict to conflict, (c) shared authorial control has yielded a more dynamic narrative (as my players are at least as creative as I am).

If my Fighter players can contribute to solving the kind of problems (but in different ways) that my Wizard players do, I'm much, much more happy with my table experience as a GM.

That is an interesting and relevant question. I, personally, haven't used many published adventures, except back with 1e and Shadowrun (because, really, it takes some serious thought to come up with appropriate plot-twists for Shadowrun, and they did better than I could at the time I was running the game.).

But, yes, if you are considering making house-rules, and you use a lot of published adventures, the compatibility matters.

That fits with my experience as well. All the great modules for 1e. Everything else is my own. I don't have an interest in posting the poll (so if someone wants to, that would be swell), but my surmise is that we would likely have a majority (at least of the voters) whose design interests are (at least) influenced by their heavy use of modules/APs, etc.

 

[Quickleaf]

Maybe someone can give a concrete example of the "problem"? I must be a more casual gamer, or have a different type of gaming style, or never fully experienced 3e because I haven't encountered it nearly as often as others have.

Are we talking the wizard can cast fly and the fighter is left, what, acquiring a winged mount? The wizard casts charm person and the fighter (probably) has no skills to offer in the social arena beyond intimidation?

 

[Starfox]

@Starfox: having gone back over the thread, are you looking for things such as the 1e stronghold building systems mentioned by @Mishihari Lord back in post #26?

I think that if I knew what I was looking for, I would have found it ^^

I mean, the problem is not that fighters can't do stuff - it is that what fighters do has less world impact. And if we knew what could give fighters (and rogues etc) world impact, we would have the solution. So I don't know what we're looking for. And I don't really think we'll find it either - but I do think we can discuss the idea and look for inspiration in each others' ideas.

At my table, this really hasn't been a very big problem - I find world impact is more limited by the player than the character, and those of my players who like wizards generally dig too deep into their powers to really engage with the world. Teleportation is more a service provided to the team than a personal asset. The one thing that has been troublesome is divination magic replacing scouting, making rogues feeling in need of some niche protection.

 

[Starfox]

my surmise is that we would likely have a majority (at least of the voters) whose design interests are (at least) influenced by their heavy use of modules/APs, etc.

I must admit this applies to me. People say I am a good GM, and I feel my campaign-building skills are also on par. I am also good at improvising and adjusting. But when I try and make adventures from scratch, they tend to be over-complex and byzantine to a degree that makes them less than fun. So I use a lot of canned adventures.

But then as I posted above, narrative space concerns come up only rarely in my games. I started this thread more as an outgrowth of an earlier discussion that to solve concrete issues at my own game table. So perhaps the issue should be reworded to something like "what preventive measures can be taken to avoid having narrative space problems?".

(In writing that sentence I found I lacked an English translation of the word "förebygga" - which is Swedish for a proactive prevention of a problem that is as yet only a potentiality, not yet a concrete issue. The lexicon could not help me. I find it worrisome that English does not have a word for this, and perhaps it is a part of the reason Scandinavia is so politically stable - we like to "förebygga" things. Put that way, I think "preventive measures" or even just "measures" could be an ideomatic translation. I rewrote the above sentence that way from an earlier unwieldier form.)

 

[Tuft]

(In writing that sentence I found I lacked an English translation of the word "förebygga" - which is Swedish for a proactive prevention of a problem that is as yet only a potentiality, not yet a concrete issue. The lexicon could not help me. I find it worrisome that English does not have a word for this, and perhaps it is a part of the reason Scandinavia is so politically stable - we like to "förebygga" things. Put that way, I think "preventive measures" or even just "measures" could be an ideomatic translation. I rewrote the above sentence that way from an earlier unwieldier form.)

Proactive prevention?

 

[Starfox]

Proactive prevention?

Discussed it with a friend - preemptive (as in preemptive strike) comes close but is even more proactive than "förebygga". Preventive (a suggestion my spelling program gave me for my mangling of preemptive) might also catch the meaning - "preventive measures" might fit. Not sure about its connotations, tough. English can be a tricky language.

 

[chaochou]

One option is to extend the bounds of what a 'mundane' ability allows you to do.

For example, we know that people can't run up walls. But in Wushu / kung-fu fighters can run up walls, up cliffs, across treetops and over lakes. This isn't considered 'magic' but the attainment of a level of physical and mental perfection.

If you model this with very specific abilities, such as 'Once per day a fighter can run up a wall of height 5' per level of the fighter' you have a very restrictive model similar to a very low powered spell.

What HeroWars (for example) did was simply set a DC (like 25) for running up walls using an appropriate skill, such a 'run'. Running across a lake? DC 45 for 'run'. Run across the treetops? DC 35 for 'run'. Outrun a lightning bolt? DC 60 for 'run'. What this means is improving 'run' doesn't just take 0.1 sec off your 200m time. As it improves you open up whole new ideas and options.

I think this is fertile ground for characters who are supposed to be heroes. It means recreating, say, Aragorn doesn't rely on writing lots of specific, closed powers for each individual thing he did in LoTR. A character with sufficent tracking can hear Orcs a day's march away, just like Aragorn, or see how a battle unfolded from the footprints in the aftermath.

In balance terms what you then have is magic being guaranteed but tightly defined and 'mundane' abilities being inconsistent but broader in application. In a world of myth and magic there's no reason to limit the upper level of what is considered 'mundane'.

 

[Mike Eagling]

I think that if I knew what I was looking for, I would have found it ^^

Ok, cool

At my table, this really hasn't been a very big problem - I find world impact is more limited by the player than the character, and those of my players who like wizards generally dig too deep into their powers to really engage with the world. Teleportation is more a service provided to the team than a personal asset. The one thing that has been troublesome is divination magic replacing scouting, making rogues feeling in need of some niche protection.

Yeah, I have a similar experience. I have trouble identifying with a lot of the discussion about non-caster disparity as it's not something I've particularly encountered. Perhaps I'm an excellent GM... Much (much!) more likely is that I've been lucky with my players. It probably also helps that I come from a 1e background and tend to run magic-poor games--wizards can wield great power but getting hold of it and keeping it are things they have to work quite hard for. The fiction of my campaign world does a lot to curb the worst of their excess.

I have some thoughts on the "teleportation and the evil wood" situation from the other thread. If I have time I may post them there. I think divination magic is generally problematic and not just because it can impinge upon rogues.

I really like the stronghold-building/henchman attracting aspects of 1e classes. They really do allow characters to invest (literally and figuratively) in the game world. They also provide a wealth of adventure hooks, a mechanism for introducing new lower-level characters, and a handy way for characters to gracefully retire without being abandoned.

I've just bought the first two parts of the Kingmaker AP in the hope it will invoke similar possibilities in PF.

A similar set of resources can be acquired by thieves/rogues by connecting them to the local guild. I've not used it much but a connection to the criminal underworld can be as compelling as the fighter and his stronghold.

One thing I've been interested in developing but haven't used yet is the trade infrastructure. I think there's as much potential there as for strongholds and thieves' guilds.

All of this is strategic rather than tactical but hopefully provides grist for the mill of discussion.

The d20 Conan system has a lot of options for non-casters. Again, it's a low-magic environment--PC casters are largely discouraged--but as a result it offers lots of options for non-casters, both strategically and tactically.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Within D&D's history:
1. Nerf casters with attacks of opportunity, anti-magic, spell resistance, or "that spell doesn't work here" a la WG6 Isle Of The Ape.
2. Give the non-casters lots of magic items.
3. Give the non-casters borderline supernatural powers that don't count as magic, such as evasion, hide in plain sight, barbarian damage reduction, and many of the monk's abilities.
4. Give the non-casters political power, and deny it to the casters.

Outside D&D's history:
1. Nerf casters with side effects a la Dungeon Crawl Classics rpg.
2. Make non-casters supernatural, like Hercules or Cú Chulainn.
3. Grant some measure of plot control to the players of non-casters.
4. Allow non-casters to be better in their areas of expertise than casters. The fighter does more damage than CoDzilla, the rogue is stealthier than an invisibility spell, etc.