Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Mike Eagling]

While acknowledging that you get the wider point, my issue with the "DM is rubbish" argument is that what you are essentially saying is "Yes, it should work like that, but for some reason that should not be actually written into the rules but should be a rule every DM should invent for themselves, should such an in-game situation arise". I don't get that; if the orcs in that situation should react in certain specific ways, why not make that determination a function of the rules by which orcs are run?

Mostly I agree with you. My remark was really intended to be interpreted as "Yes, it should work like that but for some reason it wasn't written into the rules so this DM could invent it for themselves, given that the situation has arisen".

IMO if a player states their intention is to enter the room and draw the attention of the orcs a "good" DM ought to support that intention, unless there's a good reason not to (e.g. the cited poor tactical decision of the fighter, perhaps). What I'm saying is it's possible to do this without a specific feat/skill/whatever.

However, that shouldn't be interpreted as me saying such a feat/skill/whatever mustn't be created or is generally unnecessary.

 

[N'raac]

While acknowledging that you get the wider point, my issue with the "DM is rubbish" argument is that what you are essentially saying is "Yes, it should work like that, but for some reason that should not be actually written into the rules but should be a rule every DM should invent for themselves, should such an in-game situation arise". I don't get that; if the orcs in that situation should react in certain specific ways, why not make that determination a function of the rules by which orcs are run?

Taken to its ultimate extreme, why do we need a GM at all? Wrath of Ashardalon, a D&D Boardgame simply gives each monster a series of actions, which it will choose in order. Monster writeups could easily incorporate similar "action priorities", whether automated or with actions selected by random chance, so there is no GM judgement to their actions. Add adventure modules to set the scenarios, which the players can read through as dictated by their actions ("if you turn left, go to page 127, right go to page 132"; "if you defeat the Orcs, go to page 17; if you lose, go to page 21; if you flee go to page 15").

Mostly I agree with you. My remark was really intended to be interpreted as "Yes, it should work like that but for some reason it wasn't written into the rules so this DM could invent it for themselves, given that the situation has arisen".

IMO if a player states their intention is to enter the room and draw the attention of the orcs a "good" DM ought to support that intention, unless there's a good reason not to (e.g. the cited poor tactical decision of the fighter, perhaps). What I'm saying is it's possible to do this without a specific feat/skill/whatever.

However, that shouldn't be interpreted as me saying such a feat/skill/whatever mustn't be created or is generally unnecessary.

I think this becomes a two edged sword. If there is no feat/skill/whatever, then the GM can assess what factors influence the fighter's likelihood of success (poor tactics, whether the orcs are brave or cowardly, etc.) and the fighter has a chance to succeed. But the GM and the player(s) may well disagree on how likely it is, or should be, that the fighter should succeed (right down to the player believing this should be automatic and the GM believing there is no chance of success, so he shrugs and the Orcs rush past the fighter). So, to resolve the conflict, we create very specific rules and mechanics that dictate whether the PC can accomplish this task.

But, if we decide that the ability to draw the Orcs' attention to the fighter will be mechanically determined, based on his Intimidate check, perhaps , maybe requiring a feat, or perhaps just adding a combat maneuver ("attract attention"), etc., then we now have a very specific mechanic that player and GM can turn to a page of the rulebook, and this is how the fighter's attempt will be resolved, strictly by the RAW. Now everyone is happy, right?

Sure...

as long as the player accepts that, since he didn't invest in the feat/skill points/etc. (or lacks the skill to succeed with that new combat maneuver), his fighter cannot or does not accomplish "what I can easily do in real life";

as long as the rules are clear and unambiguous so there are no debates on what the RAW actually means (we never have arguments like that, right?);

as long as we all agree these are good rules that appropriately simulate the underlying action (and players/GM's never disagree with, much less change, a written rule, do they?).

But what this will unoubtedly mean is that, since there is a very specific mechanical mechanism by which this desired action is accomplished, the PC cannot accomplish the desired result unless he has the appropriate mechanical attributes (the feat; the skill ranks; whatever) to allow him to succeed. If that's not on the character sheet, tough luck, choose to do something else.

As we gather more and more specific rules, we often become less and less willing to innovate something not covered by those rules. And, I note, that the ability to accomplish what the player wants - be able to attract the attention of those monsters - now comes at the cost of losing some other ability the player also might want his fighter to have, because he only gets 1 feat this level, so he can either atract attention of monsters, or he can get a bonus to Trip attempts and initiate them without taking an AoO.

If we have 2,000 feats, each of which represents something the player thinks the fighter should be able to do, is he happy with the tiny subset his character can access? Or would it have been better to simply allow him to attempt to attract the attention of the monsters based on an opposed Charisma roll? Would it perhaps be preferable to have a very broad structure in the rule books for resolving issues that are not covered by the rules, rather than trying to create and publish a rule for every possible situation, al mechanically suported by an ever-expanding list of feats, skills, powers, tricks, or whatever you wish to call them?

 

[Alzrius]

It's pretty obvious that those are going to have to inlcude metagame mechanics, given that narrative space options (i) involve changing the narrative space in ways that extend beyond ingame causal capacities triggered by in-character RP with linear time sequences, and (ii) non-spellcasters are, within the fiction, limited to their in-character causal capacities.

The issue here seems to be point (i). I'd prefer that non-spellcasters have in-game causal capabilities for changing the narrative space, rather than purely metagame mechanics for doing so.

That said, even leaving aside that plenty of RPGs have a long history of using such metagame mechanics to no real detriment, I'm not sure what such non-metagame mechanics would even look like, if we insisted that they be devoid any magical (or other supernatural) powers. In fact, trying to tie such metagame mechanics in with the character's abilities is how we end up with dissociated mechanics in the first place, so maybe it's better to accept that for the restrictions we want (e.g. no supernatural abilities), options to alter the narrative will have to rely on metagame mechanics.

 

[N'raac]

I suspect getting any answers we can agree on needs to start with agreeing on the question. What do we want that fighter to be able to do? If it's just "attract the attention of the monster so it attacks him", then we have several options for mechanics that will cause the monster to make one decision instead of another, and we can select from, say, a straight characteristic roll, a racial ability, a class feature, a skill (or use of an existing skill), a feat (whether with the existing feat structure or a structure that requires some choices be made from specific feat types), some other new mechanic and/or a combination (maybe it's a straight characteristic roll which some races get a bonus or penalty to, some classes get to use a diferent characteristic, and a feat can improve or modify). Now we have a fixed, RAW mechanic for this ability, and it is no eonger decided by the player indicating what he wants to do and the GM ruling on whether it works, or how we will determine success or failure.

Assuming that everyone agrees on what the RAW for this new mechanic means, and that it is a reasonable simulation of the desired ability, and that the character who did not devote the appropriate character resources to that ability can't do it (or just isn't as good at it if everone can do it), and that it is at least available to all characters who should be able to do that, then we have solved the problem - YAY!

At least until the next time we come across something without an explicit game mechanic.

It seems to me, though, like this is less about "narrative space" (a still undefined term, at least from where I sit) and more about explicit mechanics to reduce or remove GM judgement. Short of a "if it's not in the rules, it can't be done" structure, I don't think elimination of GM judgement is possible.

What I really don't want to end up with is a series of feats or class abilities like:

- "Soft Target" - as an arcane caster, you look weak, and the opponent is attracted to your weakness. Roll a character level check, modified by your CHA modifier, against a DC of 10 + target's hit dice + target's WIS modifier. If successful, target focuses his attacks on you, and will not attack other targets until you have fallen.

- "Taunt" - your roguish charms can be turned to antagonize an enemy. Roll a character level check, modified by your CHA modifier, against a DC of 10 + target's hit dice + target's WIS modifier. If successful, target focuses his attacks on you, and will not attack other targets until you have fallen.

- "Pick on someone your own size" - your obvious battle savvy attracts enemies to prove their valour against you. Roll a character level check, modified by your CHA modifier, against a DC of 10 + target's hit dice + target's WIS modifier. If successful, target focuses his attacks on you, and will not attack other targets until you have fallen.

- "Holier than thou" - your confidence and faith can be used to antagonize an enemy. Roll a character level check, modified by your CHA modifier, against a DC of 10 + target's hit dice + target's WIS modifier. If successful, target focuses his attacks on you, and will not attack other targets until you have fallen.

So everyone can do the exact same thing with the exact same mechanic, painted up to look a little bit different for each class, but everyone gets precisely the same abilities. On the plus side (for the publisher), we get to pad the books considerably, so we can charge more $$ for the same material.

 

[Balesir]

Mostly I agree with you. My remark was really intended to be interpreted as "Yes, it should work like that but for some reason it wasn't written into the rules so this DM could invent it for themselves, given that the situation has arisen".

Thanks for the response - would xp but apparently I must spread the love more...

Taken to its ultimate extreme, why do we need a GM at all?

Sure - and at the opposite end, why do we need rules at all? This was always a continuum - or, as I increasingly think, several continua, since different game "purposes" require different "targets" for the rules. Some don't relate to the processes happening in the game space directly at all; that's only needed for a fairly specific style of play.

Wrath of Ashardalon, a D&D Boardgame simply gives each monster a series of actions, which it will choose in order. Monster writeups could easily incorporate similar "action priorities", whether automated or with actions selected by random chance, so there is no GM judgement to their actions. Add adventure modules to set the scenarios, which the players can read through as dictated by their actions ("if you turn left, go to page 127, right go to page 132"; "if you defeat the Orcs, go to page 17; if you lose, go to page 21; if you flee go to page 15").

Yeah, I have (and have played) WoA, but it's a very different thing. That starts to be rules taking over the GM's role in setting up and framing encounters and scenarios. In the sense of setting the "situation" or context within which what ends up as the "story" will develop, I regard that as a key division in the D&D version of roleplaying.

I think this becomes a two edged sword. If there is no feat/skill/whatever, then the GM can assess what factors influence the fighter's likelihood of success (poor tactics, whether the orcs are brave or cowardly, etc.) and the fighter has a chance to succeed. But the GM and the player(s) may well disagree on how likely it is, or should be, that the fighter should succeed (right down to the player believing this should be automatic and the GM believing there is no chance of success, so he shrugs and the Orcs rush past the fighter). So, to resolve the conflict, we create very specific rules and mechanics that dictate whether the PC can accomplish this task.

Nice summary; I agree that's a possible approach and I agree with the problem it generates.

Sure...

as long as the player accepts that, since he didn't invest in the feat/skill points/etc. (or lacks the skill to succeed with that new combat maneuver), his fighter cannot or does not accomplish "what I can easily do in real life";

as long as the rules are clear and unambiguous so there are no debates on what the RAW actually means (we never have arguments like that, right?);

as long as we all agree these are good rules that appropriately simulate the underlying action (and players/GM's never disagree with, much less change, a written rule, do they?).

But what this will unoubtedly mean is that, since there is a very specific mechanical mechanism by which this desired action is accomplished, the PC cannot accomplish the desired result unless he has the appropriate mechanical attributes (the feat; the skill ranks; whatever) to allow him to succeed. If that's not on the character sheet, tough luck, choose to do something else.

I agree, but this is what I think is accepted when I accept a class-based system for the game I'm going to run. I have plenty of other systems where "casting spells" is not limited to specific "classes", it's a character generation OR development choice that has costs and benefits. But D&D has never worked like that, ergo I assume that 'classes' set up certain artificial boundaries as to what a character may and may not (learn to) do. I guess this is another area where there seems to me to be an artificial divide that says "mundane stuff is stuff anyone can learn, but it's impossible for mundane folks to learn spells because magic".

As we gather more and more specific rules, we often become less and less willing to innovate something not covered by those rules. And, I note, that the ability to accomplish what the player wants - be able to attract the attention of those monsters - now comes at the cost of losing some other ability the player also might want his fighter to have, because he only gets 1 feat this level, so he can either atract attention of monsters, or he can get a bonus to Trip attempts and initiate them without taking an AoO.

I don't think that neccessarily both options can't coexist in the same game, but using the "freeform" option always requires accepting that the way your character's abilities will work in the world will be according to someone else's model of the world. Rules' major function in this respect is providing all players with a common understanding of how the game world works. Without the rules one person simply decides how the world works; if this is "in tune" with how you as a player sees it, you're golden, but if it's not you may be screwed.

 

[pemerton]

even leaving aside that plenty of RPGs have a long history of using such metagame mechanics to no real detriment, I'm not sure what such non-metagame mechanics would even look like, if we insisted that they be devoid any magical (or other supernatural) powers. In fact, trying to tie such metagame mechanics in with the character's abilities is how we end up with dissociated mechanics in the first place, so maybe it's better to accept that for the restrictions we want (e.g. no supernatural abilities), options to alter the narrative will have to rely on metagame mechanics.

If I've understood this correctly, we're largely in agreement.

I suspect getting any answers we can agree on needs to start with agreeing on the question.

Agreement is nice, but I don't think it's the goal - especially not if we're talking about design of a modular system. What I think is the goal is an understanding of the range of options, their implications for the fiction and for the gameplay, and some sense of who is likely or unlikely to use them for what sorts of reasons.

Taken to its ultimate extreme, why do we need a GM at all?

<snip>

If there is no feat/skill/whatever, then the GM can assess what factors influence the fighter's likelihood of success

<snip>

But what this will unoubtedly mean is that, since there is a very specific mechanical mechanism by which this desired action is accomplished, the PC cannot accomplish the desired result unless he has the appropriate mechanical attributes

<snip>

As we gather more and more specific rules, we often become less and less willing to innovate something not covered by those rules.

This is equally true for spells, of course: once we turn magic into discrete packets of ability, we get situation like the mage who can cast fireball but can't summon a modest flame to light the campfire. And we also get fighters who, now matter how hard they try, have not chance of summoning magical flame.

In a system like Runequest or Burning Wheel there are mechanical frameworks for learning new abiliites, trying abilities untrained, etc. But I think that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] is correct that some degree of compartmentalisation is part-and-parcel of a class-based game.

 

[sheadunne]

A bit tangential, but did you try 4e and not like it, or not try it? The player of a 4e fighter definitely has the resources on his/her PC sheet to do the sort of thing you are talking about here.

Tried it. We had played with TOB a bunch when it came out at the end of 3.5 and it seemed to me that 4e focused too much on the parts I didn't like in it (encounter based resources) and ignored the parts I really like about it (Stances). When it comes to the fighter, I want a simplistic system that requires very little resources management. Stances I thought were the perfect blend of fighter resources. They could switch between them as a swift action and they only had a handful to worry about. It felt like the fighter was using different fighting styles, but didn't get into the micro management aspect of the game that wizards and the like commonly have. There were many good things about 4e, encounter based resources were not one of them for me.

My dream would be to give the fighter stances. Some of those stances could affect the narrative. Take the 4e fighter mark ability, turn it into a stance, and boost it up a little and it would make a good ability. Call it, intimidation stance. If the same fighter also had another stance, he would need to choose which he would activate at any time (ie which fighting style he was using against his enemies). If we switch to another stance, the "marked" enemies wouldn't be marked anymore and he'd have another effect going on. It seemed like a much smoother and easier system than say 4e encounter powers or the micro management of feats.

But that's all really stuff for another thread I think. A thread on where to house martial narrative options.

 

[Aenghus]

Tried it. We had played with TOB a bunch when it came out at the end of 3.5 and it seemed to me that 4e focused too much on the parts I didn't like in it (encounter based resources) and ignored the parts I really like about it (Stances). When it comes to the fighter, I want a simplistic system that requires very little resources management. Stances I thought were the perfect blend of fighter resources. They could switch between them as a swift action and they only had a handful to worry about. It felt like the fighter was using different fighting styles, but didn't get into the micro management aspect of the game that wizards and the like commonly have. There were many good things about 4e, encounter based resources were not one of them for me.

As it happens the essentials fighter subclasses. knight and slayer, from Heroes Of The Fallen Landsare based on basic attacks modified by a variety of at-will stances.

Back to the thread topic, I find that complex classes tend to have more potential power than simple classes - more hidden synergies, more broken rules, a larger pool of detailed mechanics to cherrypick for the most powerful, (or the most flavourful). I instinctively understood this even in 1e, and gravitated towards spellcasters as a consequence, typically clerics and druids in low level games, wizards in higher level games.

Across all editions, my experience is that improvisation was and is far less likely to work than specified powers, the former generally resulting in one or more of dice roll penalties, requiring multiple dice rolls for success, or just ruling it doesn't work. Further, referees can get away with these sorts of harsh rulings easier than when they modify specific player mechanics on the fly in a player-adverse way. I think it's human nature.

But for this and other reasons I really want complex mechanics to be available to a wide spread of classes, including non-spellcasters.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION], thanks for the reply. Without too much more derailment just wanted to say (i) I don't know ToB (or 3E) all that well but the Essentials fighter seems to go a bit more in the direction you describe (stances) though it still has an encounter damage boost, and (ii) the fighter in my 4e game (who is a PHB fighter, not an Essentials fighter) is the most complicated character to play at the table (and the table has a wizard/invoker multi-classed PC). Definitely not simple and micro-management free!

 

[Tuft]

The second dimension is whether these abilities - be they fortune or karma - have metagame dimensions or not. In BW they do - with a successful skill roll the player can stipulate new backstory. In 4e the metagame element is less obivous - eg most uses of Come and Get It, and most uses of marking, lend themselves to a perfectly feasible ingame interpretation without any need to assume director's stance. The biggest metagame aspect to CaGI is actually it's rationing rules (it's an encounter power) rather than its deployment in action resolution. (Some cases of CaGI against oozes would be the notorious exceptions, but I don't think many people play campaigns that are that heavily ooze-laden that this would be the primary experience of CaGI.)

But what do you do when the player-supplied narration conflict with the world-building?

- I grab a flowerpot from the windowsill and drop it on his head.
- But this is an ascetic monastery without decorations -they dont have flowerpots.
- But I paid a point to change the narrative, so now I want them to have flowerpots!

- I taunt the Orcs to attack me.
- Sigh, I had hoped to keep it secret a little more, but the truth is that these Orcs are automata, fighting under a strict program, so they dont respond to taunts...
- I don't care, my power says they attack me, so they must.