Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters
- Thread starter Starfox
- Start date
Here's the issue as I see it.
Casters (not just wizards) have tools (spells for the most part) that allows the caster to change the narrative of the game without GM consent. They have the ability to take control of the narrative.
Martials (not just fighters) do not have tools that allow them to change or take control of the narrative of the game.
What traditionally happens in D&D games is that the DM spends a great deal of time preventing the wizard from altering the narrative either through changing spells or putting up barriers to success (negative reinforcement or counter measures).
What I would like to see is the reverse of that. An acceptance in D&D of player control of the narrative (which some DMs do anyway) and allow martial characters tools to take control of the narrative.
What this requires is that DMs accept that the game is about the players and not their own narrative. This is not traditionally the D&D experience (although plenty of DMs play that way). It is also requires that martial characters gain tool necessarily to take control of the narrative. This is not something that is limited to combat, although I think it might be a good place to start, since it is traditionally the arena of martial characters.
I find that many games attempt to deal with this through the use of plot points, hero points, action points, etc, that allow the player to override a narrative that has unfolded, but these do not attempt to provide martial specific tools in the same manner that casters have the tools.
Let's ignore the fighter for a moment and look at the paladin, a traditional leader of men and defender of the faith. What if the paladin had a class ability that allowed them to call forth X number of followers in a settlement. Orcs are attacking the village, the paladin turns to the people of the town and shouts, follow me, and X number of townsfolk grab their spears and off they go. The paladin has inspired the people of the village to follow her. I think that traditionally this would be a "role playing" segment of the game that would be completely at the mercy of the DM's narrative. But what if it worked like a wizard spell (summon monster for instance), in that there may be a saving throw but other than that, the DM doesn't get to object. The paladin has used a class ability to override the narrative and summon forth his followers to fight the big evil.
Anyway, there are probably many more "mundane" things we can consider when thinking about narrative control for martial characters. But first and foremost, the DM has to want the players to have that level of martial control, otherwise they will simply use negative reinforcement and counter measures in the same way they do with caster abilities.
That's my take, although not as elegantly written as I would have liked.
Cheers.
Casters (not just wizards) have tools (spells for the most part) that allows the caster to change the narrative of the game without GM consent. They have the ability to take control of the narrative.
Martials (not just fighters) do not have tools that allow them to change or take control of the narrative of the game.
What traditionally happens in D&D games is that the DM spends a great deal of time preventing the wizard from altering the narrative either through changing spells or putting up barriers to success (negative reinforcement or counter measures).
What I would like to see is the reverse of that. An acceptance in D&D of player control of the narrative (which some DMs do anyway) and allow martial characters tools to take control of the narrative.
What this requires is that DMs accept that the game is about the players and not their own narrative. This is not traditionally the D&D experience (although plenty of DMs play that way). It is also requires that martial characters gain tool necessarily to take control of the narrative. This is not something that is limited to combat, although I think it might be a good place to start, since it is traditionally the arena of martial characters.
I find that many games attempt to deal with this through the use of plot points, hero points, action points, etc, that allow the player to override a narrative that has unfolded, but these do not attempt to provide martial specific tools in the same manner that casters have the tools.
Let's ignore the fighter for a moment and look at the paladin, a traditional leader of men and defender of the faith. What if the paladin had a class ability that allowed them to call forth X number of followers in a settlement. Orcs are attacking the village, the paladin turns to the people of the town and shouts, follow me, and X number of townsfolk grab their spears and off they go. The paladin has inspired the people of the village to follow her. I think that traditionally this would be a "role playing" segment of the game that would be completely at the mercy of the DM's narrative. But what if it worked like a wizard spell (summon monster for instance), in that there may be a saving throw but other than that, the DM doesn't get to object. The paladin has used a class ability to override the narrative and summon forth his followers to fight the big evil.
Anyway, there are probably many more "mundane" things we can consider when thinking about narrative control for martial characters. But first and foremost, the DM has to want the players to have that level of martial control, otherwise they will simply use negative reinforcement and counter measures in the same way they do with caster abilities.
That's my take, although not as elegantly written as I would have liked.
Cheers.
Starfox
Hero
I agree with this description, but I also get the impression from my players that those who pick martial classes don't want these kinds of tools. They are satisfied to be reactive rather than proactive. I've felt resistance from the players when I tired to put purely narrative tools in PC hands.
I wonder if my lack of problems with this is because I don't run sandbox games? At my table, there is generally a problem to solve each sessions, something that I as GM set up for the players to solve. That encourages more reactive play. I allows the players to solve these problems as they choose, keeping the likely spellcaster options at the back of my head when I design/select the adventure. This means that there are some scenarios that simply don't work at my table past a certain level - a story based on the PCs inability to fly won't work past level 5 with a wizard in the party, and so on. But in general, PCs are reactive, not proactive - and martial characters are usually great at being reactive - defending themselves when attacked, investigating, pursuing villains.
Abilities like these might work, but I also find that my players enjoy the role-playing involved in rallying the villagers. And also that (in DnD at least) they don't want the villagers involved, fearing excessive noncombatant casualties. Yes, my players are the kind that wouldn't use nature's ally spells until I ruled that the summoned animals were not real, live animals but spirit animals summoned from some otherworldly place, and never hurt at all by being summoned (and killed).
Neonchameleon
Legend
In my experience you're putting the cart before the horse. If you include narrative options and trickery on the non-casters then the sort of people who normally pick casters add them to their mix. if you include casters like the Elementalist Sorceror then the sort of people who normally stick exclusively to fighters add them to their mix.
I agree. It's the tradition of D&D. I don't normally play martial characters because I do enjoy the narrative tools. And there's the bit of the tangled web. How or should D&D allow players who want to play casters without narrative tools and those who want to play martials with narrative tools, get there fix? Can they? Or is D&D right where it needs to be and has traditionally always been?
I don't know. I certainly don't resist playing D&D because of it, but nor am I against a proactive change. There have been classes, especially in 3x that attempt to mix it up. The sorcerer is an example of a class that lends itself to taking non-narrative spells (blaster type spells).
Anyway, all food for thought.
Starfox
Hero
Yes, the sorcerer is a spellcaster that can avoid narrative powers without feeling gimped (at least in Pathfinder). But this is the easy part. What would a narrative-power martial character look like?
Some of the options from above could certainly work - Leadership/domain rules and the ability to inspire NPCs to act.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I don't know that that's "traditional", but let's roll with it for a minute. If you have a situation where a player and his character's abilities are in conflict with the DM, I think the solution is to try and reduce the conflict, rather than bring everyone else equally into the fray.
Take an example. The teleport spell is the benchmark for high-level magical transportation. If it's used to take the party to far-off places in search of adventure, then back home, there's probably no issue. If the player is trying to use tactically to surprise people in combat, or trying to teleport to secure or secret areas, it can conceivably become a problem. In that case, the solution is to change the teleport spell to prevent those actions, by making it harder to cast or more limited in effect. If this is a widespread enough issue, the rulebooks tackle it in their next iteration. If one DM has a problem, he fixes it and moves on. Trying to give nonmagical characters an equivalent ability doesn't solve the problem, besides the ridiculousness of them having that ability.
I imagine so. Having those narrative tools is a lot of responsibility, and sharing them can cause chaos. D&D is not a story game; it's about putting yourself in the shoes of one character and playing that role. Other games can share narrative control, but I don't think that D&D needs to go strongly in that direction, and I don't think it's a forward or modern direction, simply a different type of game. It's not as if PCs are an oppressed race in need of emancipation.
If the goal is to try and make the narrative control of different player characters more similar, I think the only appropriate solution for D&D is to reduce those abilities overall, or else you run the risk of altering the player/DM relationship.
Starfox
Hero
A possible mundane parallel was given above - the "infiltrator" schtick that lets a player replace a minion character, saying "This was my character, in disguise". While I can accept this narrative powers like infiltrator here, my players are not so keen on them.
Imaro
Legend
I'm curious and still a little unclear on what exactly falls into the category of "narrative" abilities and what doesn't... Would skills be considered tools to change the narrative? What about class abilities or feats? I guess I am asking for some criteria by which we can say this is a "narrative tool" and this is not since these all seem capable of being used to influence or change the narrative of the game.
Starfox
Hero
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I wish it was easy to define what abilities are narrative. As a very simple basic definition, a narrative ability is the opposite of a tactical ability. An ability that works off the battle mat is narrative. Again, I am open to better definitions.
By this classification, most skills are narrative in nature, while only a few feats are (mainly those feats that relate to skills). About 1/4 of all spells are, as a guesstimate.
By this classification, most skills are narrative in nature, while only a few feats are (mainly those feats that relate to skills). About 1/4 of all spells are, as a guesstimate.
