# Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters



## Starfox (Jun 20, 2013)

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.



sheadunne said:


> 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.






billd91 said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

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.



billd91 said:


> 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? 



billd91 said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

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 (Jun 20, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

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 (Jun 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> 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).



Ahnehnois said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2013)

...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 (Jun 20, 2013)

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 (Jun 21, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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>
> 
> ...



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

_Overall_


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?


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."


Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or Effectiveness + Resource only? 


Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has nothing to do with their abilities/oomph? 


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 _


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.


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.


Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced. 


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.)


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. 


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. 


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."


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.


"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.


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 (Jun 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2013)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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).



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 21, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 21, 2013)

[MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] 
So...in plain English are you asking about non-combat abilities for fighters?
Or does what [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] point out - the "narrative changing" in-combat abilities of 4e's fighter - qualify for your purposes?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 21, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> So...in plain English are you asking about non-combat abilities for fighters?




In the OP, it is stated more generally - more space for everyone who isn't a spellcaster - the idea being that spellcasters dominate narrative space, in general.  

Here's an example:  I play in a Star Wars Saga Edition game.  All five PCs are Force-users.  When we started making characters, three wanted to be "fighty", one wanted to be our social-primary, and that left the rest (piloting, mechanics, knowledge skills) to me.  When all was said and done, when combat started... I didn't have a lot to do.  I had a bundle of hit points, so I was in no danger of dying, but having not optimized for combat, compared to the three who were optimized, my contribution just wasn't relevant.

So, that may be a way to put it - "narrative space" may vaguely correspond to "relevance".  He's asking, in general, for ways for non-spellcasters to be *relevant* to play more of the time, across many types of situations, rather than relevant just within their specialization.

Now, I'm of two minds on that.  One is that yes, you don't want players to be bored, and players who feel they are not relevant stop trying and get bored.  On the other hand, if you build a character that is specialized, you should _expect_ that they'll be really good in their specialization, but not so hot outside that specialization.  Don't cry when you get what you ask for!

The D&D fighter does to some seem to have the particular problem (depending upon edition) that they don't really dole out the most damage in a fight, nor do they have skills useful outside combat.  So, they are specialized, but not so impressive within that specialty either.  That can be a problem.  

Now, we could ask for mechanical cures for this.  However, we should note that there are solutions that lie elsewhere.  For example, sometimes you can handle such issues in adventure design.  For my Star Wars character, the problem is solved when there are goals in combat that aren't about the actual fight.  I can pursue those, while the fighty characters are busy with all the fighting.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 21, 2013)

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] 
Right, adventure design being the other way to come at the potential problem. That is, if you even agree there is a problem.

I've said that many of the martial practices of 4e should have been included as core class features of the rogue and fighter classes re-released in Essentials. Sort of how the Essentials ranger gets "wilderness knacks." So your 1st level fighter might choose "Armscraft" and gain the ability to appraise and identify weapons & armor, or choose "Siegecraft" and gain proficiency with siege weapons and familiarity with siege tactics, or choose "Campaigning" and know how to organize troop supply lines, calculate marching distances, etc. These sorts of abilities serve a design space between backgrounds and skills; they suggest something about your fighter's story and also give capabilities in non-combat areas of the game like exploration, interaction, etc. 

They also act as a menu which help to define a particular fighter. After all, every D&D game probably has combat in it. If the fighter player chooses "Armscraft" then that is a cue for the DM to include a subplot or challenge involving appraising...perhaps there are heraldic devices or other clues on arms found by the PCs which the fighter can decipher.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> 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!"




This is a very good narrative device, but it works just as well for everyone. I won't kick you out of the thread or anything for that or anything (not that I could if I wanted) - narrative devices spellcasters can use are also cool. But in a way it makes more sense for mundane characters to do this - it is generally assumed that spellcasters spend a lot of off-screen time pursuing their powers, while martial characters do not.



Quickleaf said:


> [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]
> So...in plain English are you asking about non-combat abilities for fighters?
> Or does what  [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] point out - the "narrative changing" in-combat abilities of 4e's fighter - qualify for your purposes?




 [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] brings up a valid point about fighter narrative control, but no, I don't think it is enough - and aggro control is also very contentious. In my 4E game, the fighter's control felt over-effective and basically meant there was very little tactical movement, ever (Come and Get it to gather opponents - and then most everyone are stuck there for the rest of the fight). While abilities like that give nice narrative control options in combat if written well, the narrative control I am speaking of deals with campaign issues more than tactical issues. But that need not be true to every player and/or DM - I am mainly a storyteller, with storyteller preferences. To me, fights are mainly a cool diversion while the story unfolds, kind of like a mini-game in a computer adventure game. The story is always the main thing.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 22, 2013)

Starfox said:


> sheadunne brings up a valid point about fighter narrative control, but no, I don't think it is enough



This is what I was thinking while reading. 4e got some high amount of praise for meta mechanics, but I found them extremely underwhelming, as far as meta mechanics go. I don't find "can trip stuff, even dragons" and "can try to get enemies to attack me" as that great, honestly, when it comes to control over the story. Especially when the Fighter gets bad skills, and the Wizard still gets ritual casting (with Phantom Steed and teleportation) as a class feature.

If we're going to look at story implications, I'd agree with you that we should look beyond combat. Combat is important story, sure, but there are so many other areas where story matters. My preference is toning down big spells, while buffing up and defining skills, but I do use a couple type of universal meta-mechanics (Luck Points and Fame Points), and I use Hero Points when I play M&M, so I'm not completely against those implementations, either. As always, play what you like


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jun 22, 2013)

The very first thing that comes to mind for me on this topic is the 1E fighter.  If I'm remembering correctly, he accumulates followers as he goes up in level and gets a castle at name level.  This adds all kinds of narrative options without simply duplicating the spellcasters.  Some of the followers can be spellcasters too.  I honestly never really cared for this approach to fighters, but in this context it makes sense.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 22, 2013)

[MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] Gotcha, so we're talking non-combat abilities for the fighter. What about the examples I gave up thread? Do those fit what you're looking for?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2013)

Starfox said:


> This is a very good narrative device, but it works just as well for everyone.




Yes, well, though I gave the example, I happen to think it works astoundingly poorly for D&D in general.  It is the wrong genre - D&D is largely about rather direct application of power, while Leverage, true to it's name, is about being smart and subtle.  It was merely an example of something that expands narrative space, in general.

But, as a general design consideration - there comes a point where a character has enough options that they can always make themselves relevant, if they choose.  At that point, if you have something even vaguely resembling a decent action economy, how many options another player has isn't relevant, as they cannot use them all.

Basically, so long as I can always get my spotlight time, I don't care how many ways Joe has to get his.



> it is generally assumed that spellcasters spend a lot of off-screen time pursuing their powers, while martial characters do not.




We cannot help it if players don't realize that keeping in top form for mundane skills still requires work off-screen.  Really, we can't.  If the player thinks Conan keeps in fighting trim sitting on the couch eating Cheetos, we really can't help them.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] I've said that many of the martial practices of 4e should have been included as core class features of the rogue and fighter classes re-released in Essentials. Sort of how the Essentials ranger gets "wilderness knacks." So your 1st level fighter might choose "Armscraft" and gain the ability to appraise and identify weapons & armor, or choose "Siegecraft" and gain proficiency with siege weapons and familiarity with siege tactics, or choose "Campaigning" and know how to organize troop supply lines, calculate marching distances, etc. These sorts of abilities serve a design space between backgrounds and skills; they suggest something about your fighter's story and also give capabilities in non-combat areas of the game like exploration, interaction, etc.




Since you called me out on this I'll try to answer, tough I am not very familiar with martial practices - they appeared in 4E just as I was ending my 4E game. But from what I remember, they were a step in the right direction, but most felt overly specific and also a bit anemic - like rituals in many ways. Out of combat options in 4E felt neglected IMO - I think this was to facilitate the DMs job by making it easier to keep the players on track in a linear adventure. (OK, enough with the 4E bashing - sorry). 



Umbran said:


> 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!"




Back on track, if you combine martial practices with the quote from Umbran on another thread, I think we can get somewhere. Since martial practices generally take time to do in game, time you are generally short on in an adventuring situation, I feel martial practices should be the kind of thing you are assumed to have done in an earlier downtime. This would be about the same as spell preparation then - something you did before the adventure, and can take out when needed to solve a situation in-game.

(Of course, if martial practices are allowed to retcon preparations and spells are not, they need to be balanced accordingly. But then no-one is suggesting martial practices would do things like wall of stone or teleport - they'd be more useful but still useful things like a skeleton key suited to a certain lock, a uniform to disguise yourself as a guard, or horses hidden for a convenient escape - things which you by old school would do in-game, but which today's faster game styles don't give time for. Such planning and forethouight can be replaced with martial practices. 

This is my take on it, tough I realize it might annoy old-school players to no end.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2013)

Another novel mechanical approach to generating narrative space, in this case favoring non-violent actions:  The initiative system from "Doctor Who - Adventures in Time and Space".

In this game, initiatives are set not by a die roll, but by action types - actions are taken in the following order: Talkers, Runners, Doers, Fighters.  If you want to try to talk your way out of a situation, you get to do that first, then go the people who want to run away, then those who want to do something (like, say, fiddle with a technological gizmo), and only then do the people who want to do direct damage to the enemy.

This works in support of those in non-combat roles (like, say, that anime girl in the definition of "narrative space").  The basic concept can be altered to favor whatever form of activity you want.  For example, you can do it by power source, and put martial first.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 22, 2013)

Starfox said:


> (Of course, if martial practices are allowed to retcon preparations and spells are not, they need to be balanced accordingly. But then no-one is suggesting martial practices would do things like wall of stone or teleport - they'd be more useful but still useful things like a skeleton key suited to a certain lock, a uniform to disguise yourself as a guard, or horses hidden for a convenient escape - things which you by old school would do in-game, but which today's faster game styles don't give time for. Such planning and forethouight can be replaced with martial practices.
> 
> This is my take on it, tough I realize it might annoy old-school players to no end.




I'm not sure this annoys my old-school sensibilities but it does still annoy me 

It reminds me very much of Bill and Ted!

Actually, in all seriousness, I can see how it would work in Leverage and think it's a clever mechanic for that game.

One thing I did want to pick up on, however: the issue of wizard-y types out rogue-ing rogues was cited as an apparent problem with spell-caster disparity over in the warlord thread. As written, the examples cited above imply a fighter out rogue-ing a rogue, which by that rationale doesn't solve anything. The fighter's retcon abilities would have to be fighting abilities.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> Right, adventure design being the other way to come at the potential problem. That is, if you even agree there is a problem.




And there, you hit on a very real issue.  Some folks find there to be a problem, and some don't.  How many of each?  We don't know, and we don't have the facility for the surveying that would tell us, and no, the folks on EN World don't give you a representative sample, as we are self-selected as game-analytical gearheads with a tendency to be critical and so many other things.  

Fixing the problem in the rules fixes it for *everyone* - but if they didn't see a problem in the first place, you may well have introduced a new problem for those people.  Unintended consequences happen.

There is also a basic issue that no set of mechanics will ever be flexible enough for RPG use, and also so solid that a bad GM can't flub them up for you.  Every time you say, "add a mechanic to make it better" you are giving an opportunity for the GM to gloss over your new mechanical area, such that you're still irrelevant to a given scene.  

Thus, I submit that education on adventure design (for the GM) and spotlight sharing (for everyone) should come *before* mechanical repairs.


----------



## Kraydak (Jun 22, 2013)

It is worth noting that people have been trying to find narrative options for non-spellcasters in DnD for, um, _*decades*_, without any real success.  That strongly suggests that adding narrative options for non-spellcasters is a non-starter.

As an alternative, allow me to suggest a return to the pre-3e idea that not everyone be competent at combat.  Then the casters get to shine out of combat, the non-casters get to shine in combat, and, _crucially, module designers are forced to play with a fuller palette._  If everyone can fight, but only casters get to not-fight as well, you end up with very, very combat heavy adventures to avoid completely sidelining any Fighters in the party.  If only Fighters can fight (with an assist from Rogues), then you'll end up with a few "forced" fights, and a whole bunch of non-combat or optional-combat encounters.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Thus, I submit that education on adventure design (for the GM) and spotlight sharing (for everyone) should come *before* mechanical repairs.




Perhaps this kind of information ought to be included in the "beginners' boxes"? I'm assuming they generally only contain a "lite" version of the rules and pretty knick-knacks--I've never bought one so don't know.

LotFP comes with a tutorial book containing an essay by James Raggi that apparently provides his opinion on how the game should be played. I've not read it yet so have no idea as to it's contents but it strikes me as the kind of thing that would be useful to new players of a game.


----------



## NYC_DM (Jun 22, 2013)

Right on about the Complications / Hero Point system in Mutants & Masterminds.  I use that GM's Fiat rule in other games because it does work well.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 22, 2013)

I think breaking out the macro subtypes of narrative space options for mundane heroes and then filling them in is helpful to this endeavor.  Starblazer Fate is a good place to look here.  Martial Practices, Rituals, lots of powers and features embedded in Themes, Skill Powers, Skills being robust/broad packages has facilitated this in my 4e game.  This is generally how I would categorize them:

- Create/Use Asset or Macgyver (eg Tangible tools, traps, equipment, vehicles, beasts etc to interact with to facilitate success or create complications for enemies)

- Harness/Use Resource or Tyrian/Varys (eg Informants, underworld contacts, credibility with a specific faction, reputation generally that aids by proxy)

- Enable Transition Scene or Expedite Travel/Movement (eg Reconnaissance, field experience, etc used to circumvent hazards while in dangerous territory)

- Espionage or Bond (eg Intelligence gathering techniques, infrastructure saboteur techniques, secret identities, and other general spy M.O.)

- Logistical Support (eg followers, minions, organizations that aid directly)

- Physical (Breaking stuff, lifting stuff, climbing stuff, acrobatic...ing stuff)

- Sherlock Holmes (Scholarship ,lore, science and otherworldly powers of deduction/extrapolation)


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2013)

Kraydak said:


> It is worth noting that people have been trying to find narrative options for non-spellcasters in DnD for, um, _*decades*_, without any real success.  That strongly suggests that adding narrative options for non-spellcasters is a non-starter.




To use a somewhat dramatic analogy:  Folks were trying to build flying machines for centuries.  That should have strongly suggested to the Wright Brothers that flying machines were a non-starter.

The mechanics I've been mentioning are all relatively new to RPGs.  Which means that people are thinking up new stuff all the time!  Why stop trying when there's always new things to try?

I also submit that no, folks were not trying to find "narrative options" for non-spellcasters for D&D for decades.  Folks have been doing many things, but looking at it as "narrative options" is a pretty new concept.  They have, instead, been trying to find ways for fighters to dominate combat more, and have skills outside combat, but those are only a couple of things one can do - folks may have been trying to improve the fighters, but they have had some metaphorical blinders on.  As time goes on, and more games have more novel approaches, our palate of potential solutions to problems grows.



> As an alternative, allow me to suggest a return to the pre-3e idea that not everyone be competent at combat.




Because, as we all know, in 1e and 2e magic users were never forces in combat!  Fireballs and lightning bolts are sacred cows in the game because they are pretty, but they never had any real weight in a fight!  I'm sorry, that was my sarcastic voice, and I should not have used it.  But the point remains - your memory of pre-3e gaming does not match mine.  Wizards in earlier editions had low hit points, but were often crucial to winning fights.



> Then the casters get to shine out of combat, the non-casters get to shine in combat




If that's the way you have it, then players of casters are generally bored in combat, and players of non-casters are generally bored out of combat.  Being bored stinks.  Writing off a player for large sections of the game is probably not a desirable design goal.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Perhaps this kind of information ought to be included in the "beginners' boxes"? I'm assuming they generally only contain a "lite" version of the rules and pretty knick-knacks--I've never bought one so don't know.




Well, some advice ought to be found in each variation of the game.  But, my personal experience is thus:  The issue at hand is an issue of characters who are built to do one thing really well - and then find that they don't have much to do when that one thing isn't applicable.  Broadly speaking, the simpler the rules-set, the less specialized the characters is - so, the effect will be seen less in simpler versions of the game.  

For example, skills systems have a trade off.  In early versions of D&D, there was no real "skill system" as such.  If a player wanted to pull off something, they'd ask the GM, who would likely say yes, or have them make an ability check -the common thing was "roll d20 or 3d6, and get under your stat to succeed".  Anyone could try pretty much anything that sounded plausible.  If you put in a skill system, it tells the players who can or cannot succeed, and if you don't have the skill, you usually won't try.  With a skill system, you are guarded against a GM who says "no" too much, but your are prevented of taking advantage of a GM who would say, go ahead and try".


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, some advice ought to be found in each variation of the game.




Indeed but my point was inexperienced new players might benefit from a greater emphasis being placed on this information, rather than it being "relegated" to supplemental volumes.

That seems to support your assertion that "_education on adventure design (for the GM) and spotlight sharing (for everyone) should come *before* mechanical repairs._"

Unless, of course you didn't actually mean that?


----------



## Kraydak (Jun 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> To use a somewhat dramatic analogy:  Folks were trying to build flying machines for centuries.  That should have strongly suggested to the Wright Brothers that flying machines were a non-starter.
> 
> The mechanics I've been mentioning are all relatively new to RPGs.  Which means that people are thinking up new stuff all the time!  Why stop trying when there's always new things to try?




And none of the "new mechanics" have actually made it mainstream.  Further, as seen up-thread, they are often disliked.



> I also submit that no, folks were not trying to find "narrative options" for non-spellcasters for D&D for decades.  Folks have been doing many things, but looking at it as "narrative options" is a pretty new concept.  They have, instead, been trying to find ways for fighters to dominate combat more, and have skills outside combat, but those are only a couple of things one can do - folks may have been trying to improve the fighters, but they have had some metaphorical blinders on.  As time goes on, and more games have more novel approaches, our palate of potential solutions to problems grows.




You are welcome to try.  I can't imagine it being anything but a waste of time, but hey, your time.  On the other hand, focussing on giving Fighters narrative options (no success so far) blinds you to the possibility of explicitly not giving them narrative options, which has been historically decently successful.



> Because, as we all know, in 1e and 2e magic users were never forces in combat!  Fireballs and lightning bolts are sacred cows in the game because they are pretty, but they never had any real weight in a fight!  I'm sorry, that was my sarcastic voice, and I should not have used it.  But the point remains - your memory of pre-3e gaming does not match mine.  Wizards in earlier editions had low hit points, but were often crucial to winning fights.




Kinda/sorta/not really.  On one hand, you have 1/2e Clerics.  A powerful class (not a heal bot!  the lack of heals at spell levels 2 and 3, and the lack of Cure Wounds scaling saw to that), with a decent defense, but no offense to speak of.  Then you have Wizards, with "amazing" offensive spells... that could be matched by a Fighter in a round or two.  And the Wizard got actually just-about DnD Next numbers of spell slots.  Wizards weren't helpless offensively (although Fireball and Lightning Bolt were both... difficult.. to deploy if played straight)... but were completely helpless defensively, thanks to not actually having any HP.  A 1e/2e party that tried to engage in combat without a Fighter (or Fighter subclass) was bonkers.  What Wizards *did* have was enough of an offensive punch to contribute on final boss fights.



> If that's the way you have it, then players of casters are generally bored in combat, and players of non-casters are generally bored out of combat.  Being bored stinks.  Writing off a player for large sections of the game is probably not a desirable design goal.




Actually, it is a good design goal (as long as the write-off isn't total).  What we got in 3e was lots of combat, which resulted in Casters taking lots of combat spells, which meant adventure designers upped the fight difficulties, which resulted in casters doing full burns, which resulted in the complete sidelining of Fighters, and the 5MWD.  And boring modules, because the Casters could contribute (heck, dominate) combat, while the Fighters couldn't contribute there.

By having some characters be not-good at out-of-combat stuff and some characters not-good at combat, you (a) force module design to be more interesting (you'd see a lot less set-piece battles, and more plain "how do you get past this") and (b) make your whole game-balance problem much, much easier.  It also forces players to play outside of their character's specialty, forcing creativity.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Unless, of course you didn't actually mean that?




I meant it, but not in that sense.  I don't mean, "the player should see the advice on adventure design before he or she sees the mechanics".   I mean that it should come first to those who are considering issues in design of a game.  If you have such a problem, see if you can fix it with the most flexible and lightest-touch tool available first.  If that still fails, then you bring out the wrenches and hammers and beat the mechanical systems into shape.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Ok, as the Op I will step in here and say that this is the tread about possible new narrative options and how to implement them.

if you want to discuss the viability of this method, and say that it is not worthwhile to try and build narrative space into a game, you are free to do so  and present your reason this is so - but please that that discussion elsewhere. It is not what this thread is about.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 22, 2013)

Kraydak said:


> And none of the "new mechanics" have actually made it mainstream.  Further, as seen up-thread, they are often disliked.




Tabletop roleplaying isn't mainstream and hasn't been for decades.  Given that more than 10,000 people were prepared to put down an average of $40 each pre-publication for a game they knew would be available for free I'm calling Fate pretty mainstream by RPG standards.  About as mainstream as an Apple as a desktop PC.  (By comparison the recent Exalted v3 Kickstarter had fewer than half that number of people backing - and Exalted was the number 2 RPG for most of the last decade).



> You are welcome to try.  I can't imagine it being anything but a waste of time, but hey, your time.  On the other hand, focussing on giving Fighters narrative options (no success so far) blinds you to the possibility of explicitly not giving them narrative options, which has been historically decently successful.




The big question is what sort of environment you're in.  In 1e the wizard had to find and scavenge spells as loot - and the loot skewed towards the fighter.  In 2e a specialist wizard could give up three schools to get (amongst other things) one spell per level - and the fighter absolutely kicked ass and took names in combat.  An extra attack every odd numbered round?  And a bonus to hit and damage?  And a near monopoly on magic swords (remember Clerics couldn't wield them).  Also in both editions the wizard went down like Jacques Cousteau if anyone actually reached them in combat.

Or in other words in 1e _all the wizard's narrative control powers__ were given out by the DM_.   In 2e most of them were - and the fighter rocked hard at what they were supposed to do while the wizard could not set foot on the fighter's territory.  In both those situations the fighter doesn't need metagame powers to keep up.



> By having some characters be not-good at out-of-combat stuff and some characters not-good at combat, you (a) force module design to be more interesting (you'd see a lot less set-piece battles, and more plain "how do you get past this") and (b) make your whole game-balance problem much, much easier.  It also forces players to play outside of their character's specialty, forcing creativity.




Agreed.

I'm honestly more worried about fighter/cleric and wizard/rogue balance than I am fighter/wizard.  (Or more accurately if a wizard can duel with a fighter successfully, the game will be a wallbanger).  This is why I'm as worried as I am about things like Tightrope Walking: DC 25 in the current playtest packet.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2013)

Kraydak said:


> And none of the "new mechanics" have actually made it mainstream.




Here's two little items you may have forgotten:

1) Becoming "mainstream" is not the only judge of quality in any genre of entertainment, or even a particularly good judge of quality.  A lot of kinda crappy stuff is "mainstream".  Domino's Pizza is mainstream.  

2) There's really only one "mainstream" RPG - D&D (I am lumping all the variants in here).  If it isn't in D&D, it isn't mainstream, and if it is in D&D, it is mainstream.  Thus, as a criticism, it is kind of circular logic - You shouldn't try to use it in D&D, because it isn't mainstream.  But wait, it *can't* be mainstream until it is used in D&D!  Self fulfilling prophecy there.   By that measure, the only mechanics we should ever use in D&D are the ones that have already been used.  In fact, there shouldn't have been an AD&D, because it had mechanics that weren't "mainstream" D&D at the time.

So, really, toss the "mainstream".  It isn't relevant.



> You are welcome to try.  I can't imagine it being anything but a waste of time, but hey, your time.




If I am welcome to try, why are you trying to tell us we shouldn't?  That doesn't seem very "welcome" to me at all.  

Right now, you're like a fan of Edition X, going into threads about Edition Y to tell folks how bad Edition Y is.  If you think we are wasting time here, think about the waste of time it is to go about tearing other people down, rather than build up something cool of your own.  Talk about non-constructive!  Also, talk about rude!

How about you go try to find or create a thread in which you talk about stuff you do like, rather than stuff you don't, and let folks here have their discussion, please and thank you.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 22, 2013)

It would be interesting if we could dissect what proportion of gamers predicate their design interests on designer modules and designer adventures.  It seems that there is a decent cross-section of people who advocate positions based on the impact of those modules and pre-written adventures.  I do not currently, nor ever have, considered what I want out of a ruleset (D&D or other) based on the potential impact to modules or pre-written adventures.  I wonder how often this leads to cognitive dissonance on this board (when its not canvassed as the cornerstone, or at least a pillar, of someone's agenda).

Back to the subject.  5e should take a cue from its Trait portion of Background design and extend that.  It was immediately my favorite part of the ruleset and appending those sorts of features to Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, et al would do the trick nicely.  For instance, one of the character's in my 4e games is a Macgyver type and has a suite of powers that he puts to good use in non-combat conflict resolution.  One of those is called "A Tool for Everything" where basically he has the narrative authority to come up with a tool (either something on the spot that he jury-rigs or something he's had in his pack for just such an occasion) that would be immediately useful to whatever is happening within the fiction (and roll the relevant check for his current panel in the Skill Challenge).  The same goes for something like the Peerless Exploration Martial Practice (It reads basically exactly like a Background Trait with some codified mechanics to buff and resolve some potential conflicts) whereby an accomplished scout/outdoorsman can deftly accrue the knowledge of any bodies of water, suitable campsites, settlements, and  ruins, as well as the presence or absence of hostile inhabitants in an extended area after a short period of reconnaissance; thus warding a campsite and cancelling any possibility of random encounters during travel (basically cueing transition scene a la Wizard Teleport).  5e could easily pull this off using the spirit of its Background Traits.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I don't mean, "the player should see the advice on adventure design before he or she sees the mechanics".




Well, no. Neither do I.



Umbran said:


> I mean that it should come first to those who are considering issues in design of a game. If you have such a problem, see if you can fix it with the most flexible and lightest-touch tool available first. If that still fails, then you bring out the wrenches and hammers and beat the mechanical systems into shape.




I see. I was instead viewing this in the context of your exchange with [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] earlier in the thread, in that some of this lack of narrative parity is perhaps a by-product of adventure design. Some proportion of players are homebrew adventure designers and so such design considerations are pertinent to them. My line of thinking was that if the tools for increasing class narrative effectiveness were made more prominent from the get-go it may go some way towards resolving the apparent disparity--at least in so far as it can be mitigated without mechanical changes.



Starfox said:


> if you want to discuss the viability of this method, and say that it is not worthwhile to try and build narrative space into a game, you are free to do so  and present your reason this is so - but please that that discussion elsewhere. It is not what this thread is about.




I'm not claiming there's no room for mechanical changes, I'm just suggesting there are many ways to crack a nut.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 23, 2013)

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]  [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]  [MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION]
I recall a 2nd edition game I played with 2 other players, one played a fighter & the other a mage; both got equal screen time, were quite effective both in and out of combat, had interesting backgrounds which I drew upon, and it seemed there was plenty of "narrative space" for the fighter alongside the mage.

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

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. Spellcasters get more options, period. If the goal of design is that all classes be more balanced in terms of their rules-defined noncombat options, then adventure design won't address it in D&D because essentially its a player choice issue.

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


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 23, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


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




I think this is generally true for the reasons you state.

Having said that I've just noticed the badge attached to this thread title. I've come to this thread from the discussions about what people would like to see in DnDNext and I've been posting here with that in mind. I now realise perhaps this discussion is intended to be wider in scope than I had originally considered 

 @_*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?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2013)

Kraydak said:


> It is worth noting that people have been trying to find narrative options for non-spellcasters in DnD for, um, _*decades*_, without any real success.





Umbran said:


> folks were not trying to find "narrative options" for non-spellcasters for D&D for decades.  Folks have been doing many things, but looking at it as "narrative options" is a pretty new concept.



The earliest example I can think of, of doing something along the lines of trying to find "narrative options" for fighters, is a Dragon article by Katharine Kerr from the mid-80s (Mar 85, Dragon 95, pp 33ff) discussing the award of XP for non-combat activity, and trying to consider how the fighter can meaningfully participate in such activity, given that (in Gygaxian AD&D, at least) full XP awards depend upon playing to your class archetype:

What really counts in awarding experience points, then, is the struggle of the PCs to succeed in whatever task the scenario sets for them. The only reason that the experience-point system as it stands is so limited [to XP for treasure recovered and monsters defeated] is that it was designed to judge a very limited type of scenario —- the dungeon adventure or its above-ground equivalent. Our problem arises when the goals of the scenario have nothing to do with armed enemies and loot, but we can expand the basic principle of using the goals of the scenario as the basis of awarding points to cover a vast number of different kinds of game actions.

Before we do, however, there is one more aspect of the rules as they stand that we must consider, namely, that the PCs must use the skills of their particular character classes in completing the adventure. . . a PC who acts outside of his class or who doesn’t use the skills specific to his class is not entitled to a full share of the points awarded by the DM. . .

Let'’s again consider the example of the PC party attempting to rescue a friend from slavery. Since one of the stipulations of the scenario is that violence is forbidden, how can the fighter in the party pursue his major aim, which is to fight? In this and similar situations, we need to extend the concept of the major aim of each class to include staying in character and drawing upon the skills and background of the class. After all, a PC is much more than a mere chess piece limited to a single type of move.

In this example, a fighter could draw upon the skills of his class in many ways. If the party were gathering information from underworld types, the scowling presence of a well-armed fighting man would not only keep the party safe but help intimidate their sources and induce them to cooperate. Likewise, he could guard their goods from thieves, take care of any local bullies in the tavern, and generally threaten force in subtle ways to advance the party’s cause. As long as the player of the fighter PC worked to stay in character this way, the DM would certainly be justified in awarding the fighter a full share of experience points, even if he never drew his sword.​
I think this is quite thoughtful, but also suggests a pretty passive role for the fighter ("guard their goods from thieves", "threaten force in subtle ways").

I find it hard to envision a more active solution for the fighter that (i) preserves strong class siloes and (ii) does not involve metagame mechanics. Spellcasters have magic, which makes metagame abilities unnecessary. Thieves/rogues have the full range of skills - which, as per 4e (as an example), can be adjudicated in a way that puts them on a par with a lot of magic. But the fighter is not going to have either of these things (because then would be either a caster or a thief/rogue).

The 4e approach - of buiding core class features around combat, and then using skills and rituals, which are more flexibly accessed (if not completely classless), to handle non-combat - is an alternative, but establishes a fairly high minimum degree of focus on combat as an element of the game.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> It would be interesting if we could dissect what proportion of gamers predicate their design interests on designer modules and designer adventures.




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.




Mike Eagling said:


> My line of thinking was that if the tools for increasing class narrative effectiveness were made more prominent from the get-go it may go some way towards resolving the apparent disparity...




Fair enough.  I think the issue there is that introductory products imply new GMs.  You can put in some information along these lines, sure, but it should be as basic and introductory as the rules-set.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2013)

Quickleaf said:


> 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. 



Umbran said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2013)

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 (Jun 23, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> @_*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 (Jun 23, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2013)

Starfox said:


> (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 (Jun 23, 2013)

Tuft said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2013)

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 (Jun 23, 2013)

Starfox said:


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




Ok, cool 



Starfox said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2013)

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.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2013)

Yeah, I just haven't seen this as a problem either. I really don't see what class has to do with "narrative space" at all. Weird.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 24, 2013)

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.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.




sheadunne said:


> 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.




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 (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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.




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.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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 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 (Jun 24, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.






sheadunne said:


> 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?
> [...]The sorcerer is an example of a class that lends itself to taking non-narrative spells (blaster type spells).




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 (Jun 24, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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).



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.



Starfox said:


> 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 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 (Jun 24, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> The teleport spell is the benchmark for high-level magical transportation. [...] Trying to give nonmagical characters an equivalent ability doesn't solve the problem, besides the ridiculousness of them having that ability.




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 (Jun 24, 2013)

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 (Jun 24, 2013)

[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.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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.




Yeah, I can appreciate where they're coming from. In D&D I'd want to role-play the infiltration. Retrospectively saying "A-ha! This was me all long!" doesn't mesh with my POV cause-and-effect way of playing, even though it'd likely be great in a different game.

 @_*sheadunne*_: I like your "summon peasant" idea


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 24, 2013)

I don't have my books with me for the various systems that employ narrative tools but its pretty straight forward.  Players are provided with PC build tools which give them assets/resources/techniques for their characters to use or that provide complications for their enemies.  Oftentimes, the assets/resources/techniques are (or at least can be) deployed from actor stance while the complications are deployed from author or director stance; the latter being the strongly metagame variety of resources that cause problems for some people.

For instance:

An analog for the powerful Divination spell "Detect Thoughts" or various scouting ("Eye" or "Divination") spells might provide a character the ability to subtely swindle information out of a subject.  This might ocurr with some social grease over a night of drinks, through a proxy network ("I know a guy who knows a guy"), or perhaps immediately through skill (such as Streetwise, Intimidate, Insight, Diplomacy).  The important thing is that (a) the player gets to deploy this situation proactively, (b) have the odds of success be of the same variety as the afformentioned Detect Thoughts, (c) and the results of the forrtune resolution be either assured (not vague "you think") or (d) the player gets to outright author the results and create content in the fiction.

There can be an analog for a Wall of Force or some other powerful Conjuration or Transumation.  Perhaps the player spends a <whatever> point to create a complication/obstacle for an enemy.  During a chase, the player might decide that the character knows a hidden shortcut to evade pursuit or corner prey...or a nigh-impassable gorge might appear over a rise in a horseback chase...or a bustling market or a lively tavern which is easy to lose a tail in.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> An analog for the powerful Divination spell "Detect Thoughts" or various scouting ("Eye" or "Divination") spells might ...




A comfy chair?

Semi-seriously, the soft cushions + smite evil is a 100% proof method of detecting evil - no amount of anti-divination can defeat that.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> [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.




I think part of the reason to think in terms of "narrative space" or "relevance" is just this.  Any ability allows you to affect the narrative - tactical combat abilities allow you to affect the narrative *of combat*.  The fight is part of the story, and your fighting powers help determine how it goes!  Some abilities (like the ability to directly create a complication for an adversary) allow you to more directly influence the narrative, but ultimately, any ability does the trick.

The fighter's problem is that, while he has lots of abilities, they are *all* in combat.  The only place and time the Fighter typically gets to influence the narrative is in the fight.  In social scenes, or puzzle scenes, he's pretty much sitting on his hands, waiting for others to do the job.  So, however many abilities he has, he only has that one narrative space.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> The fighter's problem is that, while he has lots of abilities, they are *all* in combat.  The only place and time the Fighter typically gets to influence the narrative is in the fight.  In social scenes, or puzzle scenes, he's pretty much sitting on his hands, waiting for others to do the job.  So, however many abilities he has, he only has that one narrative space.




There's another aspect to this, though. The fighter is supposed to be *better* at affecting that particular narrative than other characters, which gets into questions of the degree to which a character can influence a narrative versus how many narratives they can influence at all. If you put that on a graph, a fighter has very little measure on the X axis, but is very high on the Y.

Now, there are some areas of debate in this, mostly in terms of "spellcasters trample all over the fighter's combat mastery" and "some narrative ability in multiple narrative areas is better than narrative mastery in a single area at the cost of being able to affect any other." The latter, however, is an opinion that's going to vary from person to person (including ideas of how much trying to make the fighter effective in other narratives will dilute his theme as a fighter), whereas the former is a question of whether this should be fixed by busting down spellcasters' combat prowess, or raising up the fighter's even more.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 24, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 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.




Yeah, me too.  My guess is that it means the tools that a PC uses in order to achieve their goals.

Class specific stuff (so not magic items or contacts, since those aren't tied to a class; anyone can pick up boots of teleport or a crystal ball or make friends with a king) would be...
A fighter can fight.
A wizard can teleport, scry, go to other planes, summon monsters to fight, cast magic, give information, etc. - a lot of stuff.

Which would mean that the wizard's goals can be a lot "bigger and wider" - a wizard can cover more area and has more options.  Then either the fighter goes along with the wizard's goals or the wizard limits his goals to the fighter's.  If their goals were the same and the goal is one that the fighter can accomplish without the wizard then there is no conflict.  Otherwise I think there would be; does the wizard need the fighter to accomplish their goals as much as the fighter needs the wizard?  (I guess the XP system can throw a wrinkle into this... It's possible that the longer it takes to achieve a goal the easier it becomes.)


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 24, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> The fighter is supposed to be *better* at affecting that particular narrative than other characters
> 
> Now, there are some areas of debate in this, mostly in terms of "spellcasters trample all over the fighter's combat mastery" and "some narrative ability in multiple narrative areas is better than narrative mastery in a single area at the cost of being able to affect any other." The latter, however, is an opinion that's going to vary from person to person (including ideas of how much trying to make the fighter effective in other narratives will dilute his theme as a fighter), whereas the former is a question of whether this should be fixed by busting down spellcasters' combat prowess, or raising up the fighter's even more.




LotFP attempts to raise the fighter's combat effectiveness. In combat a character hits if their d20 roll + attack bonus + environment mods is greater than the defending AC. 0-level types get no attack bonus. Non-fighter classes get a +1 attack bonus at 1st level and above. Fighters get a +2 attack at 1st level, increasing by +1 at each level thereafter. That makes fighters increasingly better at conventional combat than any other class.

Whether or not magic then bridges that gap I can't say.

And it still doesn't help with giving the fighter more to do than just fight.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 24, 2013)

Well then it seems like the first step in creating a fighter that has more narrative tools would be to increase his access to skills... right?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 24, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> And it still doesn't help with giving the fighter more to do than just fight.




I know that it doesn't; I'm suggesting that one school of thought in regards to this issue is that different characters are "balanced" by looking at giving them different degrees of narrative options in various narrative situations...in which case, a particularly high degree of narrative options in one particular situation (e.g. combat) is balanced by giving them very few narrative options in all other areas.

Now, the consensus here seems to be that that's not working, but I wonder how much of that is because non-fighter characters have comparatively de-valued the fighter's high degree of options in the combat narrative (as opposed to "that idea doesn't work because it's objectively better to have a moderate degree of narrative options across a broad range of narratives, rather than a very high degree of options for one narrative and extremely few in all others").


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 24, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I know that it doesn't;




I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Perhaps "And it still doesn't help with..." would have been better worded "Not that it helps with..." ?


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2013)

This is a very interesting discussion, in that despite reading it, there are people like myself who have no idea what the problem is. Not to a lack of reading comprehension, but something else. 
   What it looks like to me is bad DMing, and munchkinism what with wanting spell abilities the DM can't alter. BS to that. 
   All classes and players can, and should, alter the flow of the story. Isn't that how its made? Not by DM railroad, but by how the players decided to interact with the world? 
    Its the DMs job to ensure all PCs get enough limelight, and relevance, to what is going on, if thats what they crave. 
   But how about this as well - if you want more "narrative power", play your character more interestingly. Stop looking for mechanics to solve something that isn't broken.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2013)

MJS said:


> But how about this as well - if you want more "narrative power", play your character more interestingly. Stop looking for mechanics to solve something that isn't broken.




First off, please allow for the fact that with many different ways to play, what works for you may not work for someone else.  What looks like "not broken" to you may be a major issue to someone else.

The problem isn't about "play your character more interestingly".  The issue isn't about being interesting internally, but having ability to interact with the world.  The number of people who are satisfied with playing an entirely internal game, where they don't really have impact on how events unfold, but instead just react to the unfolding of events, are small.  Most folks like to be able to help steer the ship, so to speak.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 24, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Well then it seems like the first step in creating a fighter that has more narrative tools would be to increase his access to skills... right?




In my understanding, skills allow a player to participant in the DMs narrative, but not to shape the narrative themselves. 

Take the climb skill for instance. The DMs narrates that there is a wall to climb. The climb skill allows the character to participate in the narrative. They get to climb the wall. But what if the character wants to change the narrative by saying that there is no wall to climb? something that a wizard character could certainly do through a number of spell options.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> There's another aspect to this, though. The fighter is supposed to be *better* at affecting that particular narrative than other characters, which gets into questions of the degree to which a character can influence a narrative versus how many narratives they can influence at all. If you put that on a graph, a fighter has very little measure on the X axis, but is very high on the Y.




Yes, and some players are fine with that.  For example, some players may play a fighter and say, "Wake me up when a fight starts."  And certainly, if as a player you're happy not doing much when there's no fight going on, then there's nothing broken here.

If, however, you get bored under such circumstances, the classic Fighter is a bit of a problem for you.  You don't play a game to feel bored, right?

This is why I keep using the term "relevance".  I honestly think that most players don't need to be the best of the best at everything.  But, most players at least want to be able to contribute in most types of scenes.  They want to at least be able to be relevant most of the time.  This goes double if they already feel someone else is stealing their thunder in their primary niche.  If I am not the best fighter, and I am the worst at everything else, how satisfied will I be as a player?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 24, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> In my understanding, skills allow a player to participant in the DMs narrative, but not to shape the narrative themselves.
> 
> Take the climb skill for instance. The DMs narrates that there is a wall to climb. The climb skill allows the character to participate in the narrative. They get to climb the wall. But what if the character wants to change the narrative by saying that there is no wall to climb? something that a wizard character could certainly do through a number of spell options.




See I guess I view this differently. In both instances of the narrative... the wall is an obstacle which must be overcome, both characters have the potential power to create a narrative where they overcome said obstacle. Now I understand the way in which this obstacle is overcome is relevant to the fiction... but then I think a mundane solution for the fighter and a reality bending one for the wizard are pretty much spot on for the archetypes they represent, so I don't see why a fighter should be able to overcome the obstacle (and thus change the narrative) in the exact same way a wizard would... say by making the wall dissappear. Now in all honesty a fighter of a sufficient level could also batter down the wall, though this would probably be a sub-optimal way to overcome the obstacle... but then so would climbing it if the wizard didn't have magical aid.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Yes, and some players are fine with that.  For example, some players may play a fighter and say, "Wake me up when a fight starts."  And certainly, if as a player you're happy not doing much when there's no fight going on, then there's nothing broken here.
> 
> If, however, you get bored under such circumstances, the classic Fighter is a bit of a problem for you.  You don't play a game to feel bored, right?




Right, but under those circumstances it is, as you said, that the fighter is a bit of a problem "for you." The issue in that case could justifiably be considered to be that the player simply made a bad choice in picking a fighter to play, rather than something needing to be done because the fighter class isn't serving non-fighting interests.



> _This is why I keep using the term "relevance".  I honestly think that most players don't need to be the best of the best at everything.  But, most players at least want to be able to contribute in most types of scenes.  They want to at least be able to be relevant most of the time. This goes double if they already feel someone else is stealing their thunder in their primary niche.  If I am not the best fighter, and I am the worst at everything else, how satisfied will I be as a player?_




This gets back to what I was saying previously, that there's an idea that it's simply better to have a character with some degree of narrative options in most kinds of narratives, rather than someone who has a very large degree of options in one narrative area, and very few in all others. Now, the idea of "good at most things, but the best at nothing" is certainly a viable option, and a popular one, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily the better option. Some people do want specialization at the cost of broad options.

Moreover, if we view these two choices for a characters' style of narrative options as being the ends of the spectrum - and given that the game includes both of these, and several option in between - why is there necessarily a problem with the fighter? It's there for those that want it, and can be avoided by those that don't. If people feel that playing a fighter isn't giving them enough narrative options for combat that's commensurate with the lack of options elsewhere, doesn't this mean that they've either made a bad decision in playing a fighter, or that the fighter's narrative combat options are being comparatively de-valued by other classes that have near-comparable narrative combat options?


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 24, 2013)

Imaro said:


> See I guess I view this differently. In both instances of the narrative... the wall is an obstacle which must be overcome, both characters have the potential power to create a narrative where they overcome said obstacle. Now I understand the way in which this obstacle is overcome is relevant to the fiction... but then I think a mundane solution for the fighter and a reality bending one for the wizard are pretty much spot on for the archetypes they represent, so I don't see why a fighter should be able to overcome the obstacle (and thus change the narrative) in the exact same way a wizard would... say by making the wall dissappear. Now in all honesty a fighter of a sufficient level could also batter down the wall, though this would probably be a sub-optimal way to overcome the obstacle... but then so would climbing it if the wizard didn't have magical aid.




What if, say for instance, a player had a feature for their character called "As if it wasn't there..." The player plays this trump card and then gets 2 benefits:

1 - The wall (obstacle, etc) isn't there in a way that interposes itself between the character and its objective. It moves from adversity to mere color. 

2 - Authorial rights to determine how this wall/obstacle has moved from adversity to mere color. Perhaps the character knows of a secret passage/tunnel to circumvent it. Perhaps they have a guard that owes them a favor and the guard then smuggles the PCs through the gate to the other side in a covered wagone. Perhaps the character knows the patrol schedule and perfectly executes an infiltration (for the whole group) over the wall.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Moreover, if we view these two choices for a characters' style of narrative options as being the ends of the spectrum - and given that the game includes both of these, and several option in between - why is there necessarily a problem with the fighter?




Because while a few players may want to choose solely based on style of narrative options, I suspect for most players character choice is a multi-dimensional thing.  Where it sits on the style of narrative options is one variable.  The fluff, style, power source (the flavor of how it delivers its options - the flavor) also matters.  

In a perfect world, we'd have each class able to cover all the breadth of narrative options - you could have a fighter that with a laser-focus on fights, sacrificing all else, and you could have a fighter who was still primarily there to be a sword-arm, but also had some other options in social or other realms.  Interestingly, clerics and wizards to tend to have more flexibility - you can create a utilitarian wizard, or a combat-focused one, largely depending on your spell choice.  We don't have that same flexibility among the warriors.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 24, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> What if, say for instance, a player had a feature for their character called "As if it wasn't there..." The player plays this trump card and then gets 2 benefits:
> 
> 1 - The wall (obstacle, etc) isn't there in a way that interposes itself between the character and its objective. It moves from adversity to mere color.
> 
> 2 - Authorial rights to determine how this wall/obstacle has moved from adversity to mere color. Perhaps the character knows of a secret passage/tunnel to circumvent it. Perhaps they have a guard that owes them a favor and the guard then smuggles the PCs through the gate to the other side in a covered wagone. Perhaps the character knows the patrol schedule and perfectly executes an infiltration (for the whole group) over the wall.




So the player would circumvent the obstacle... differently, I have no issue with that (with the possible exception of it being automatically successful). I might be missing the point here. Would this "As if it wasn't there..." card have any of the limitations a spell might, like not working in an anti-magic field, failling if it doesn't overcome SR or on a successful save, perhaps not being taken because a different power was chosen, and so on?  Because as it stands it seems way more powerful than any spell.

As too the authorial rights... I'm of a mixed mind on this. Magic doesn't give full authorial control as you are presenting it in number 2, spells have specific rules and limitations surrounding them, but what you are proposing doesn't. I'm also not sure all players should be allowed this type of freedom since it has no boundaries or limitations and there will be players who use that to push the game in a direction that may be fun for them but not necessarily for the DM or even the other players at the table.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Because while a few players may want to choose solely based on style of narrative options, I suspect for most players character choice is a multi-dimensional thing.  Where it sits on the style of narrative options is one variable.  The fluff, style, power source (the flavor of how it delivers its options - the flavor) also matters.




But that problem only exists if you look at the fighter in a vacuum. What's wrong with having the fighter serving the aforementioned "few players" you mentioned, while everyone else who doesn't want that level mastery for a single style of narrative options, but more options in other narratives, chooses a different class? 



> _In a perfect world, we'd have each class able to cover all the breadth of narrative options - you could have a fighter that with a laser-focus on fights, sacrificing all else, and you could have a fighter who was still primarily there to be a sword-arm, but also had some other options in social or other realms._




I guess I just see us as already having the options you're outlining, simply in the form of other classes (e.g. rangers, bards, etc).



> _Interestingly, clerics and wizards to tend to have more flexibility - you can create a utilitarian wizard, or a combat-focused one, largely depending on your spell choice.  We don't have that same flexibility among the warriors._




Yes, but is that a failing among warriors, or a gratuitous level of ability among the spellcasters? There's no consensus on the issue, as there are strong arguments both ways - hence, there's some credit for the argument that spellcasters need to have their options dialed back, rather than have the warriors' options increased.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 24, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Yes, but is that a failing among warriors, or a gratuitous level of ability among the spellcasters? There's no consensus on the issue, as there are strong arguments both ways - hence, there's some credit for the argument that spellcasters need to have their options dialed back, rather than have the warriors' options increased.





Lets assume we have an RPG X, where the fighter lives up to its name, and is, well, best at *fighting* - best armored, best at handling weapons, best at tactics. Also assume that narrative control over non-combat situations are equal among classes. What weakness *should* the Fighter have in this fictive system to balance this?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 24, 2013)

Tuft said:


> Lets assume we have an RPG X, where the fighter lives up to its name, and is, well, best at *fighting* - best armored, best at handling weapons, best at tactics. *Also assume that narrative control over non-combat situations are equal among classes.* What weakness *should* the Fighter have in this fictive system to balance this?




I've emboldened the part where you lost me. The whole point of the fighter - at least as I've been postulating it for the purposes of this discussion - is that this is a class that has unmatched narrative options only where combat is concerned, and exceedingly few in all other narrative situations. 

Given that, you've removed the fighter's key weakness, and then asked what weakness it should have...which seems, to me, to undercut the point.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

I think making the fighter a lot more powerful in combat is not the way to go - at least not from Pathfinder where fighters are considerably buffed from 3.5. No, what we want is to spread the competence of the different classes across a wider field.

Say we say there are the "three legs" of narrative space: Combat, social, exploration. How do the 4 classic classes do in this list? I'll try a ranking on a 1-5 scale (this is pathfinder, and based on my impression)

Fighter
Combat 5
Social 2 (Intimidation)
Exploration: 1 (armor check penalty)
Sum: 8

Rogue
Combat 2
Social 4 (skills)
Exploration: 4 (skills, class abilities)
Sum:10

Cleric
Combat 4
Social 3 (Diplomacy, possibly higher with domains)
Exploration: 5 (find the path, speak with dead)
Sum: 11

Wizard
Combat 4
Social 4 (charm)
Exploration: 5 (divination)
Sum: 13

So, even assuming the fighter is actually the best at combat, it is still the least competent overall. And I feel I've rated spellcasters rather low, especially at higher levels. Increasing the fighter's rating in combat might be an option if we feel it is behind other classes in combat (which I feel it isn't), but otherwise it feels a lot more constructive to buff classes where they are weak - that is the social/exploration side of the fighter and the combat side of the rogue.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 24, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I've emboldened the part where you lost me. The whole point of the fighter - at least as I've been postulating it for the purposes of this discussion - is that this is a class that has unmatched narrative options only where combat is concerned, and exceedingly few in all other narrative situations.
> 
> Given that, you've removed the fighter's key weakness, and then asked what weakness it should have...which seems, to me, to undercut the point.




I was referring to the point where some, not necessarily you, want fighters to have equal amount of out-of-combat narrative control as other classes. I think somebody mentioned playing a card that made a wall climb "not a problem" being equal to a climb spell, for example. So I just used your post as a launch-board for wondering "If you *do* make the fighter equal in *all* sorts of narrative options, how can you afford to make him as good at fighting as the name implies?"

Or, if you, still in a theoretical non-existing system, make him superior at combat narrative, what narrative should he be inferior in?

Note that I am asking how things *ought* to be, *not* how they currently are in various D&D incarnations...


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> is that [narrative imbalance] a failing among warriors, or a gratuitous level of ability among the spellcasters? There's no consensus on the issue, as there are strong arguments both ways - hence, there's some credit for the argument that spellcasters need to have their options dialed back, rather than have the warriors' options increased.




This depends on what game you want to play, or rather on how much mud and grit you want in your game. Since wizards that fly have always been a part of DnD, the DnD tradition is to have rather little mud - at least past level 5 or so. DnD is fantastic fantasy rather than gritty fantasy and should be balanced around that assumption. Nothing prevents a plug-in module or out-branching game to be more gritty, but that is not how DnD has been. Even "F*ing Fantasy Vietnam" has choppers and agent orange equivalents.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2013)

Bear in mind that the spell memorisation classes such as cleric, wizard and druid can become whatever they want to be after a night's rest. A wizard can memorise all divination spells or all social, or a mix, whatever he thinks is most appropriate. That's an option the rogue and fighter don't have.

I don't particularly like rpg characters that can do anything, at least not in a game with three or more other players. They're too powerful and they lack a clear cut schtick. This is one reason I prefer sorcerers and favored souls to wizards and clerics. The spontaneous casters also have the advantage of not slowing the game down for the other players while the day's spells are selected.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> So, even assuming the fighter is actually the best at combat, it is still the least competent overall. And I feel I've rated spellcasters rather low, especially at higher levels. Increasing the fighter's rating in combat might be an option if we feel it is behind other classes in combat (which I feel it isn't), but otherwise it feels a lot more constructive to buff classes where they are weak - that is the social/exploration side of the fighter and the combat side of the rogue.




I've set these rating by what I feel is the consensus here at ENworld. Looking at my own game table, I feel I've rather over rated the casters. Sure you can use charm to be a social wizard - but that often has repercussions afterwards. And invisibility might make the wizard a decent sneak, but it makes the rogue a great one. And Haste doesn't really improve a wizard much at all. Sure, these buffs might originate with a spellcaster, but the actual camera time (which I feel is what the players are competing for) goes to the buffed character, not the buffer.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I've set these rating by what I feel is the consensus here at ENworld.



Consensus? ENWorld? That would kind of defeat the point of the site.

That being said, I don't really buy the three domains or pillars or whatever you want to call them. Investigation, for one seems to be quite distinct from social or exploration. Then there's the crafting and professions and other downtime/nonadventuring stuff (the stuff in Ultimate Campaign, if we're talking Pathfinder). And really, quite a few other oddball situations.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Fighters are fairly limited in their out-of-combat performance under the rules. Your casters aren't quite as limited in their in-combat performance (though it depends greatly how they're built and what level everyone is) and can do quite a bit outside of combat. Which is closer to the ideal class, a mix of compelling strengths and meaningful weaknesses? I'd argue the fighter is closer to the ideal. It needs to be built up in some areas to make it more interesting, but the casters also need some limits.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> First off, please allow for the fact that with many different ways to play, what works for you may not work for someone else.  What looks like "not broken" to you may be a major issue to someone else.
> 
> The problem isn't about "play your character more interestingly".  The issue isn't about being interesting internally, but having ability to interact with the world.  The number of people who are satisfied with playing an entirely internal game, where they don't really have impact on how events unfold, but instead just react to the unfolding of events, are small.  Most folks like to be able to help steer the ship, so to speak.



 And apparently, spell powers and skills allow these people to feel this way? I think those players should just play a goddamn fighter/mage and be done with it. It's not as if fighters are actually excluded from a narrative lead, or interaction, outside combat. That's ridiculous. 
    Yeah, I think it really is a matter of playing more. "Interestingly" isn't the best way to say it. Get over the spell envy, and just do stuff. Ability to interact with the world is not a class ability, it is a measure of player / DM skill. 
    In my opinion. Play what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law...


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

MJS said:


> And apparently, spell powers and skills allow these people to feel this way? I think those players should just play a goddamn fighter/mage and be done with it....




OP chiming in. Again. 

Please, questioning the very viability of narrative space options falls outside subject of this thread. Feel free to start a thread on that, but don't obstruct the discussion here by questioning the very basis of the discussion.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I've set these rating by what I feel is the consensus here at ENworld.






Starfox said:


> Wizard
> Combat 4
> Social 4 (charm)
> Exploration: 5 (divination)
> Sum: 13






Ahnehnois said:


> That being said, I don't really buy the three domains or pillars or whatever you want to call them. Investigation, for one seems to be quite distinct from social or exploration.




Curiously enough, I did this precise thing about 8-10 months ago on here.  I had Combat, Social, Exploration, Investigation as the primary headings and 4 sub-headings beneath each.  I then proceeded to grade them out (with deployable resources broken down).  I tried in vain to locate the post last evening.  Maybe it got eaten in the website reboot.  

I had Generalist Wizards at an A- in one category and A to A + in the other 3 I believe.

Discounting 4e, the only iterations where Fighters were truly top tier at combat was post UA 1e, post Combat and Tactics 2e (with ginsu katana dual wielders and dart machine guns).  Even then, Generalist Wizards dominated Investigation, Exploration and Social conflicts and were as good (or superior in several situations) to Fighters;  Save or Suck spells (and especially the AoE variety), ridiculous control spells, polymorph, invulnerability by proxy of invisibility, fly, stoneskin, haste etc.

If I'm picking first for D&D dodgeball, I'm going Generalist Wizard 3.x, Bearbearbearbearbeareverywhere Druid 3e, Cleric 3.x, UA 1e Fighter, C&T 2e dual wield katana or dart machine gun Fighter as my top 5.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Discounting 4e, the only iterations where Fighters were truly top tier at combat was...




Have you tried using the combat maneuvers in Pathfinder? They have been upgraded alot.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> I had Generalist Wizards at an A- in one category and A to A + in the other 3 I believe.



While I can see where that comes from, it is important to note that without the right spells memorized, the wizard is often fairly useless. At any one time, the wizard is not anywhere near as versatile as you're suggesting; memorizing enough spells to be capable at combat pretty much consumes all the wizard's spells. The wizard's usefulness depends greatly on whether he knows what is coming or has time to prepare and can memorize the right spells in advance (which is probably why my players don't like them; they have no idea most of the time). I tend to look at a fighter as being a bird in hand and a wizard as being two in a bush.

To be fair, once you get into double-digit levels, spell slots aren't much of a limitation anymore. And I still think some limitations on that power are in order. But in actual play, a wizard is more of a C student who can get an A in one course if he tries hard enough.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 24, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> That being said, I don't really buy the three domains or pillars or whatever you want to call them. Investigation, for one seems to be quite distinct from social or exploration. Then there's the crafting and professions and other downtime/nonadventuring stuff (the stuff in Ultimate Campaign, if we're talking Pathfinder). And really, quite a few other oddball situations.




I actually had Investigation as a separate rating at first, but decided to go with the three pillars since Meals spoke of them recently. And having investigation and exploration separate didn't change much except make the fighter look even crappier. I think 3 branches gets the point across - the more ratings you take an average off, the more bland the numbers will be.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2013)

In the social sphere, fighters can be great military leaders or politicians, like Conan. For the travel sphere one could play up the knightly, mounted combatant aspect of the fighter and allow access to better mounts or the ability to spur a steed on faster. At higher levels the fighter's mount could become magical, to stay competitive with the casters - it could be a pegasus, gryphon or even a shantak (a creature from the Cthulhu Mythos that can fly thru space).

The trickiest area is investigation, I think.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I actually had Investigation as a separate rating at first, but decided to go with the three pillars since Meals spoke of them recently. And having investigation and exploration separate didn't change much except make the fighter look even crappier. I think 3 branches gets the point across - the more ratings you take an average off, the more bland the numbers will be.



I follow your reasoning, but I do think it's important to remember that things are more complicated. Combat, as well, can be split into a number of discrete competencies. Doing that won't necessarily make the fighter look better, it would simply provide a more complete picture.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

MJS said:


> And apparently, spell powers and skills allow these people to feel this way? I think those players should just play a goddamn fighter/mage and be done with it. It's not as if fighters are actually excluded from a narrative lead, or interaction, outside combat. That's ridiculous.




To use an example - look at a 3e fighter.  Look at the skill points (2 per level) and the skill list (climb, craft, handle animal, jump, ride, swim - that's it).

So, sure, he can interact.  But he won't gain anything by doing so, when all the DCs are set for the characters who do have social skills, perceptions, or other abilities that allow them to interact with the environment or the people *better* than he can.  It will generally be color interaction only, not changing the flow of play or events.  

If you are back playing Basic, without a skill system, that's different.  Then the fighter interacts with the world as well as anyone else.  But when the system defines how interactions work, then not having the things that boost those interactions is a barrier to doing so.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> But that problem only exists if you look at the fighter in a vacuum. What's wrong with having the fighter serving the aforementioned "few players" you mentioned, while everyone else who doesn't want that level mastery for a single style of narrative options, but more options in other narratives, chooses a different class?




What part of "the style matters" didn't get across?  What other class has the basic flavor of the fighter, but with greater narrative breadth?  You've got an argument that the 4th Edition Warlord fits the bill, but if you don't like 4e for other reasons, you're pretty stuck for options, especially in the core.

Basically, you're saying a player needs to choose class based primarily upon narrative breadth, rather than upon flavor or style.  I'm suggesting that's pretty much a non-starter as a suggestion.



> I guess I just see us as already having the options you're outlining, simply in the form of other classes (e.g. rangers, bards, etc).




Just to hammer home the point - rangers and bards are, flavor-wise, not much like fighters.  No heavy armor for either.  Music-magic for one, treehugging for the other.  These are not very fighter-like.



> Yes, but is that a failing among warriors, or a gratuitous level of ability among the spellcasters? There's no consensus on the issue, as there are strong arguments both ways - hence, there's some credit for the argument that spellcasters need to have their options dialed back, rather than have the warriors' options increased.




Which is stepping outside the scope of the discussion as set in the OP.  

But, I'll say again - while some folks may like that "wake me up when my particular situation comes up" gaming, I've seen far more complaints that folks without narrative breadth are bored, than I've seen complaints that the game doesn't provide them enough time to nap or check their e-mail.  Anecdotal, sure, but that's what I have to go with.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> What other class has the basic flavor of the fighter, but with greater narrative breadth?



The thug variant, arguably the barbarian or any of the other martial classes, and number of fighter prestige classes (or archetypes or kits, depending on game). Still room for improvement, mind you.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 25, 2013)

Imaro said:


> So the player would circumvent the obstacle... differently, I have no issue with that (with the possible exception of it being automatically successful). I might be missing the point here. Would this "As if it wasn't there..." card have any of the limitations a spell might, like not working in an anti-magic field, failling if it doesn't overcome SR or on a successful save, perhaps not being taken because a different power was chosen, and so on?  Because as it stands it seems way more powerful than any spell.




You'd have to hammer it into shape with a modicum of specificity, of course, and take into consideration the various interactions with subsystems and general system assumptions.  You'd also have to figure out the how the resources are scheduled/rationed (eg 1/day or what).  It was just a quick and dirty example of the general principle.

However, way more powerful than any spell?  Ghost Sound?  Silent Image?  The combo of the the two?  Charm Person?  Spider Climb?  Invisibility?  Levitation?  Any number of these are extraordinarily functional in Exploration encounters where you need to bypass a manned obstacle without conflict.  None of these even touch on the ridiculous potency of Sleep, Glitterdust, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Grease as these are of primary use in combat resolution and all encounter-enders of the SoS variety at low level (which isn't relevant to bypassing obstacles, of course...well its relevant to bypassing sentient obstacles).



Imaro said:


> As too the authorial rights... I'm of a mixed mind on this. Magic doesn't give full authorial control as you are presenting it in number 2, spells have specific rules and limitations surrounding them, but what you are proposing doesn't. I'm also not sure all players should be allowed this type of freedom since it has no boundaries or limitations and there will be players who use that to push the game in a direction that may be fun for them but not necessarily for the DM or even the other players at the table.




Magic gives an extraordinary amount of fiat.  Allowing players to contrive the narrative around their spell is more on the technique level than the system level.  I routinely let my players do it.  They have my trust.  Just as I have theirs.  

Sure, not all players have the practice in this so they "can't be trusted" (yet).  And some might try to push the game in a direction that requires some reining in or table/GM veto.  However, the gate swings both ways here.  There are untrustworthy GMs, out of practice (or unpracticed) GMs the same as players.  I don't know why we should endorse "rulings not rules" design ethos (that implicitly trust the GM) while forbidding player authorial control options (which implicitly distrusts players) when there are plenty of each group lacking the chops and plenty possessing them.  I would likely trust most people on this board with authorial control options.



Starfox said:


> Have you tried using the combat maneuvers in Pathfinder? They have been upgraded alot.




I've GMed a truly absurd amount of 3.x.  I've read the Pathfinder changes through and through.  Some of them are quite good.  However, at the heart of the problem with melee options/disparity between casters and mundane melees is the action economy.  The nature of the Full Attack option basically mandates its use progressively as you level.  Spending a move actually becomes progressively more and more punitive toward output.  Dirty Trick, Drag, Reposition, Overrun options as a Standard Action is just not remotely worth the loss of iterative attacks.  To compound the issue, they require a check and feat investment to even get off the ground (eg avoid an AoO).  Full Attack and 5 foot move is almost always universally the best option for you personally and for your group and Trip is still your best control.  

What a melee character really needs are automatic control and survivability buff riders to basic attacks (or riders that pass their fortune resolution at an extremely high rate).  This is why you see trip builds as the go-to for melee.  PF tried this with a few of the melee control options but they are again deficient (I wrote a long post somewhere on this outlining the problems with the Defender line of feats) and they require an extreme amount of feat investment (basically your full assemblage) for this net deficiency.  Combat Patrol is a very good effort.  However, it needed more bite and not such a loss of Action Economy for the melee Defender.  

I hacked my game to remove Full Attack and make FA a Standard Action, normalizing the Acton Economy.  It had so many 2nd order interaction issues, however, that the whole thing just became too burdensome after awhile.  



Ahnehnois said:


> While I can see where that comes from, it is important to note that without the right spells memorized, the wizard is often fairly useless. At any one time, the wizard is not anywhere near as versatile as you're suggesting; memorizing enough spells to be capable at combat pretty much consumes all the wizard's spells. The wizard's usefulness depends greatly on whether he knows what is coming or has time to prepare and can memorize the right spells in advance (which is probably why my players don't like them; they have no idea most of the time). I tend to look at a fighter as being a bird in hand and a wizard as being two in a bush.
> 
> To be fair, once you get into double-digit levels, spell slots aren't much of a limitation anymore. And I still think some limitations on that power are in order. But in actual play, a wizard is more of a C student who can get an A in one course if he tries hard enough.




I wish I still had that post.  I broke out so much in there.  

Honestly, I just don't see this here.  

1e before 9th level...ok, maybe.  After that, forget about it.

2e with specializing (which still lets you be a Generalist, Batman Wizard)...by level 5 you're a monster who "should", if you have a reasonable modicum of system mastery) be handling every conflict that arises and by level 9, dominating all theaters of conflict...without any threat of being spell-starved.  3 SoS spells/day memorized and you can Batman your entire spell-load out with all the tricks in the book.

3.x?  Scribe Scroll at 1, CWI 3rd, CW 5th?  I've never, ever heard of a spell-starved Generalist Wizard in 3.x.  I've GMed 6 Wizard players ranging from average system mastery to Magic The Gathering savant level of system mastery.  By 5th level, they were spell-factories and dominated all theaters of conflict resolution.  Mind you, none of these guys were/are gross, power-gaming jerks (most of them were swell enough folks).  They were just playing RaW, core material...not god-awful abominations.  In the same time I GMed a few Clerics, Druids and mundane, martial characters.  The 3e Druid player was probably worse.  Most of my frustration during that period was trying to keep the spirits up of the players of those mundane, martial characters...desperately trying to keep them involved without willfully (in a truly contrived fashion) C-blocking the caster players...and trying to deal with ridiculous Divinations destroying every possible reveal, every investigatory conflict.

However, as I've read aplenty, this all may be because I'm a bad GM and/or my players are (were) entitled.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 25, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> (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.)




The word you're looking for is indeed preemptive.

And you certainly don't need to apologize.  It wasn't a condemnation, merely an observation and a hypothesis.  

With respect to using canned content versus improving or writing your own, keeping it simple and self-editing is easily the most difficult part of content creation.  I would assume that using canned content aids most people in that endeavor and helps them focus their creative energies (and their players by-proxy) on specific, focused conflict.  

Whatever gets the job done!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 25, 2013)

Starfox said:


> 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.





Neonchameleon said:


> 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 think this is an interesting question. Do certain fantasy archetypes have more or less appeal to particular gamer personalities? My gut instinct is to agree with Neonchameleon, but not on the basis of any serious research or evidence!



Ahnehnois said:


> 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.



Going back to and from base via teleport is a big issue in a system where PCs are balanced on a "limited abilities per day" model - because the casters can teleport home and rest when they run out of juice.

When my group used to play Rolemaster we eventually adjusted the balance of martial PCs and casters so that a martial PC in action was about the equivalent of a caster PC going nova. Anything short of this still left too much advantage to the casters, given there ability to control the refresh rate. Teleporting to base only amplifies this effect.



Imaro said:


> 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?





sheadunne said:


> In my understanding, skills allow a player to participant in the DMs narrative, but not to shape the narrative themselves.



This is a bit of a repost from another thread (on Free Will and Story). It talks about things other than skills, but also a bout skills:

I want to split the notion of narrative into two components: situation; and plot.

Very roughly, by "situation" I mean "the obstacle/challenge/encounter/scene that confronts the PCs"; by "plot" I mean the sequence of events that occurs over the course of play.

Some elements of D&D suggest that the GM has (or should have) strong control over plot - especially a lot of 2nd ed advice and adventures, which encourage the GM to exercise control over "the story" - but others don't (eg there is a fairly strong sandbox tradition in D&D play, and also strong elements of 4e advice that push against GM control of plot). To the extent that players of casters have more authority over plot than (say) those of fighters - for instance, they can more easily bring about results via action resolution (say, save-or-die; or buffing other PCs) - then that just seems like an issue of imablance of effectiveness. Whether this is good or bad depends, I guess, on how important the balance of effectiveness is. 4e, at least as I see it, tries to deal with this by giving players of fighters more meta-abilities (eg enc and daily powers).

With situation, it's a bit different, in so far as different editions take quite different by seemingly deliberate approaches. 4e tends to assume a high degree of GM situational authority - players can write quests, for instance, but it is the GM who gets to frame the obstacles in the way of the PCs. And 4e drops many of the notorious rules elements (eg reliable long-range teleportation) that tend to undermine GM authority over the framing of situations. Whereas Classic D&D, with the dungeon crawl, tends to be built on the assumption that the GM will author "possible" situations, but the players will choose which ones their PCs confront. (Gygax, in the final section of his PHB, recommends the decision about which "situation" to confront - ie scouting out the dungeon to find a suitable target - as a reasonable goal for a session in of itself.)

Casters certainly have better capabilities at exercising situational authority in classic D&D - movement spells, scrying spells (to help inform choices), etc. And this seems to be deliberate. It's not just a balance issue, but seems to be part of what playing a caster gets you that playing a fighter doesn't. Changing the game to make casters more like fighters in this respect (which 4e does) is a fairly big thing. Changing the game to make fighters more like (traditional) casters in this respect would be an even bigger thing, I think.

One of the bigger issues, for me, about 3E-style D&D - which includes skills - is that with many abilities the designers seem to equivocate between action resolution abilities, which give control over plot ("OK, now my guy does this thing, and these consequences for the other pariticpants in the situation ensue."); and scene-framing abilities, which give control over situation ("OK, GM, you've framed us into an illusion-filled room, but not my guy casts True Seeing and you have to reframe us as being in a plainly perceptible room.) Divination spells are particularly obvious instances of this, but so is the Diplomacy skill (reframes from social conflict to NPCs as non-obstacles), the Perception skill (use much like True Seeing above), and other abilities too. Teleport is another instance too - it looks like it could be action resolution (say in a game like MHRP, which permits the challenge to be framed as one involving vast galactic distances) but in D&D, which really has no action resolution mechanics for dealing with conflicts beyond skirmish-level ranges, it defaults to scene-reframing.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have abilities that straddle action resolution and scene-reframing, but it's seem a mistake to include them just by accident.

And on a lighter note:



Starfox said:


> IYes, 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).



In a RM game that I ran the player of the summoner used to worry that he was summoning (and therefore killing) giant eagles at such a rate that he was the biggest single factor contributing to the extinction of the species!


----------



## Starfox (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> What other class has the basic flavor of the fighter, but with greater narrative breadth?  You've got an argument that the 4th Edition Warlord fits the bill.




I agree with most of your reasoning, but not with that the warlord has much in the way of narrative control - all warlord abilities are combat abilities. Nor would a version of the warlord in any other edition necessarily have more out-of-combat options. Heals, buffs, removing negative effects from allies, tactical positioning and action surges - all say "combat" to me. The warlord's out-of combat options are about as wide as the fighter's, possibly with a little additional skills. I like the warlord, but not because of it's narrative options.

Of course, this only strengthens your original point.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 25, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> 3.x?  Scribe Scroll at 1, CWI 3rd, CW 5th?  I've never, ever heard of a spell-starved Generalist Wizard in 3.x.



How people handle magic item creation is apparently a big point of difference between groups. I never saw that players were willing to blow feats on item creation (trading out Scribe Scroll is a given), and I find that XP costs (back when I used XP) are anathema to players. This being a game about adventure, PCs also tend not to have a ton of downtime in my games (though there are exceptions). Also, item-based spells are useless if CL or DC matter at all.

But I have heard this narrative of omnivalent item-enabled casters dominating the game, and it does make me wonder what is going on there. Certainly, 3.X's item creation rules need a major overhaul regardless.



> I've GMed 6 Wizard players ranging from average system mastery to Magic The Gathering savant level of system mastery.  By 5th level, they were spell-factories and dominated all theaters of conflict resolution.  Mind you, none of these guys were/are gross, power-gaming jerks (most of them were swell enough folks).  They were just playing RaW, core material...not god-awful abominations.



I've DMed...I don't remember how many wizards. Several, but not a ton. They invariably struggle to keep up with other PCs. Playing a wizard is more of a fun experiment than a quest for world domination. I find the same thing with NPC wizards; they tend to be less of a challenge then their level would suggest and running characters with spellbooks and memorized spells sucks. It's very hard to memorize optimal spells, and in 3.5 math, most saving throws are made. The powerful effects are there in the rules, but getting results in-game is pretty hard. Again, for me it's two birds in a bush.



> In the same time I GMed a few Clerics, Druids and mundane, martial characters.  The 3e Druid player was probably worse.



I've had a ton of druids, because my games tend to be outdoors, perhaps. Useful, but never dominant.

Then again, my most recent experience was having an 11th level NPC druid sneak attack a party of 3 10th level PCs and one fairly weak NPC. Your PCs were a ranger, a monk, and a monstrous character with blink dog abilities and a couple levels of rogue (i.e. no real casters). I definitely optimized that druid and unleashed the rulebook on them, and the PCs totally owned him. None of his offensive spells could pierce their defenses, his animal companion was useless, and his wild shape forms did him no good. I find that happens frequently with casters; tons of options, but most of them don't work, and option paralysis sets in.



> However, as I've read aplenty, this all may be because I'm a bad GM and/or my players are (were) entitled.



I'm not going to say that, but I will say that the rules themselves don't dictate those outcomes. There's room for revision in the rules, but I don't think that eliminating the god-wizard or trying to create a god-fighter is needed.



pemerton said:


> Going back to and from base via teleport is a big issue in a system where PCs are balanced on a "limited abilities per day" model - because the casters can teleport home and rest when they run out of juice.
> 
> When my group used to play Rolemaster we eventually adjusted the balance of martial PCs and casters so that a martial PC in action was about the equivalent of a caster PC going nova. Anything short of this still left too much advantage to the casters, given there ability to control the refresh rate. Teleporting to base only amplifies this effect.



I've never believed that limiting abilities "per day" had much of an effect on balance. As Trailblazer states, it's really "per rest". So yes, I generally believe that casters will nova, and need to be balanced based on that expectation in the model we have. Whether you can teleport or not (though moreso with Teleport), players are generally quick to rest.

Difference is, if anything I've modified the rules to encourage that, as spell points and standard spell DCs (i.e. all spells are one DC instead of lower-level spells being garbage) make it easier. I want my casters to A) use their best abilities frequently and have some chance of them working, and B) run out of spells regularly. To me that's the best way to utilize the mechanical assets in the game to create an interesting and dynamic play experience.

In the broader context of my games, starting from RAW and gradually moving to widespread houserules, I've yet to see the casters take over the narrative.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 25, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> You'd have to hammer it into shape with a modicum of specificity, of course, and take into consideration the various interactions with subsystems and general system assumptions. You'd also have to figure out the how the resources are scheduled/rationed (eg 1/day or what). It was just a quick and dirty example of the general principle.
> 
> However, way more powerful than any spell? Ghost Sound? Silent Image? The combo of the the two? Charm Person? Spider Climb? Invisibility? Levitation? Any number of these are extraordinarily functional in Exploration encounters where you need to bypass a manned obstacle without conflict. None of these even touch on the ridiculous potency of Sleep, Glitterdust, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Grease as these are of primary use in combat resolution and all encounter-enders of the SoS variety at low level (which isn't relevant to bypassing obstacles, of course...well its relevant to bypassing sentient obstacles).




My point was that without the checks and balances of a spell such as saving throws, picking against the unknown, etc... yes it is more powerful than even the spells you listed, making an obstacle a "non-obstacle" is very powerful without any type of restrictions.




Manbearcat said:


> Magic gives an extraordinary amount of fiat. Allowing players to contrive the narrative around their spell is more on the technique level than the system level. I routinely let my players do it. They have my trust. Just as I have theirs.




It's not just about trust, it's about system too. A fire spell has certain rules that go along with it, as does charm, sleep etc. that all put limitations and specified effects to constrain the narrative. Remove an obstacle is a pretty broad power, couple that with the fact that you can then mutate the fiction in any way you want to account for it... what spell allows such a thing? but you've addressed this up top and my acceptance or non-acceptance of it would depend heavily upon it's implementation.



Manbearcat said:


> Sure, not all players have the practice in this so they "can't be trusted" (yet). And some might try to push the game in a direction that requires some reining in or table/GM veto. However, the gate swings both ways here. There are untrustworthy GMs, out of practice (or unpracticed) GMs the same as players. I don't know why we should endorse "rulings not rules" design ethos (that implicitly trust the GM) while forbidding player authorial control options (which implicitly distrusts players) when there are plenty of each group lacking the chops and plenty possessing them. I would likely trust most people on this board with authorial control options.




Well just as a piece of anecdotal data, one of the problems I and the other DM in our group have when giving over this type of authorial control is that the setting can often loose mood, consistency and tone. In fact you really get to see how each individual player is picturing the story, setting, etc in their head... and of course it's only natural that when they have authorial control this creeps into it. If I as DM am running a game and describing it with gritty realistic fluff... but then Bob takes over authorial control, and suddenly we are in a land of giant Buster Swords with a japanimation feel... then John uses his narrative control to impose a fairy-talesque world... well (IMO) the consistency and importance of the fluff looses something. I don't think this is about trust or anything like that since it's perfectly ok for individual players to picture in their head the gameworld as they see it... however I do think there needs to be a baseline commonality and that it should start with the DM since ultimately he is responsible for running the game in the imagined setting.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2013)

Imaro said:


> baseline commonality



This is particularly an issue with D&D, because there isn't any. D&D doesn't have a genre other than 'fantasy', which is extremely broad. I'm currently co-GMing a Star Wars game and it's much easier to establish a baseline from the movies, as everyone has seen them, though it does get a little trickier when you get into the Expanded Universe.

A lot of roleplaying games are based on a tighter genre than D&D is. For example superhero games, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, James Bond 007, or Feng Shui.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 25, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Well just as a piece of anecdotal data, one of the problems I and the other DM in our group have when giving over this type of authorial control is that the setting can often loose mood, consistency and tone. In fact you really get to see how each individual player is picturing the story, setting, etc in their head... and of course it's only natural that when they have authorial control this creeps into it. If I as DM am running a game and describing it with gritty realistic fluff... but then Bob takes over authorial control, and suddenly we are in a land of giant Buster Swords with a japanimation feel... then John uses his narrative control to impose a fairy-talesque world... well (IMO) the consistency and importance of the fluff looses something. I don't think this is about trust or anything like that since it's perfectly ok for individual players to picture in their head the gameworld as they see it... however I do think there needs to be a baseline commonality and that it should start with the DM since ultimately he is responsible for running the game in the imagined setting.




Framed this way (rather than what I thought you had intended with trust), I understood your concerns.  Coherency of genre conceits (mood, tone, tech level, etc) is huge to me as well.  Much of this just falls into social contract and calibration.  If Bob is breaking out the Japanime in a game that is meant to be Spaghetti Western, then I probably didn't brief Bob well enough, he's utterly unaware, or he's being belligerent.  I've had all 3 of these scenarios before; its the primary reason why my calibration with my players is extremely thorough and my player-base has contracted to a few great players and a few guest appearances.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 25, 2013)

The more we talk about this, the more I feel the term "narrative space" is misleading, and the more I lean into the "three pillars" model - Combat, Exploration, Social. What we call narrative abilities are abilities that fall under the last two pillars. The goal seems to be to give all character some level of competence in each pillar, to avoid bored players reading their mail at the table. Of course not everyone need to be as good in each pillar, not should different characters deal with each pillar in the same way - a wizard's exploration is vastly different from a fighter's. By the same token, a front-line fighter a, a buffer, an "autoturret" archer, and a controller mage all contribute to combat, but if in different ways. This is as it should be. But to have a character lack almost all competence in a certain pillar is not good.

About what pillars there should be, I find the above three work for me. Investigation is a mix of exploration (physical examination) and social (witnesses & rumors). Aerial combat is still combat. Travel is a variant of exploration. Castle-building is a part of social. So it is with most adventure activities - they are either a part of one of the pillars, or a mix of them. The three pillars are arbitrarily chosen, but they work for me.

The best scenes are those with a mix of the pillars - someone has to open the secret exit, someone else convince the princess to come with you, while others keep the castle guards at bay (preferably without killing any). That way the scene is sure to engage everyone, but not all scenes can be this complex.

This is what I've gotten out of the discussion here so far (as well as some concrete ideas on social and exploration options).


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> What part of "the style matters" didn't get across?  What other class has the basic flavor of the fighter, but with greater narrative breadth?  You've got an argument that the 4th Edition Warlord fits the bill, but if you don't like 4e for other reasons, you're pretty stuck for options, especially in the core.




First of all, exercise some moderation of your tone, please. Saying "what part of X didn't get across" comes across as a very aggressive response. Don't make me report you. 

The problem with this statement is that it moves the goalposts - we're talking about the issue of narrative areas of the game where the fighter has relevant options for directing/affecting the flow of the narrative. The question of the "style" of those options - which seems to be the in-game contextualization of how they're exercising those options (e.g. "it's magic" versus "it's non-magical inspiration," when both have the same game results) - is a separate (though related) consideration.

As such, as [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] very cogently pointed out, the issue with "style" is a separate consideration. The warlord has a different style than the fighter, but that doesn't broaden where they have narrative options; they're still all combat all the time. They just have a slightly different set of options for the same narrative.



> _Basically, you're saying a player needs to choose class based primarily upon narrative breadth, rather than upon flavor or style.  I'm suggesting that's pretty much a non-starter as a suggestion._




For the purposes of this thread, I'm saying that if you're unhappy with the narrow breadth of narrative options available to a fighter, then you shouldn't play a fighter. The style of the class is a secondary concern, in this instance - if you really want to be a character that's focused on exploration, then a fighter isn't going to suit that theme very much, even if you don't like that the more-suitable druid class is so heavily slanted towards "priest of nature."



> _Just to hammer home the point - rangers and bards are, flavor-wise, not much like fighters.  No heavy armor for either.  Music-magic for one, treehugging for the other.  These are not very fighter-like._




That's the point - they're not fighter-like; they have greater breadth of narrative options, at the (ostensible) cost of some combat mastery.



> _Which is stepping outside the scope of the discussion as set in the OP._




So are questions of style, which is why (as I mentioned above) the OP gently rebuked you for citing the warlord as an example of a solution to this particular issue.



> _But, I'll say again - while some folks may like that "wake me up when my particular situation comes up" gaming, I've seen far more complaints that folks without narrative breadth are bored, than I've seen complaints that the game doesn't provide them enough time to nap or check their e-mail.  Anecdotal, sure, but that's what I have to go with._




You've moved the goalposts back to the original complaint, here. Warlords will be just as bored in that particular regard as fighters, despite their stylistic differences.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 25, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Going back to and from base via teleport is a big issue in a system where PCs are balanced on a "limited abilities per day" model - because the casters can teleport home and rest when they run out of juice.




I hear this a lot.  It carries a lot of implications that, to me, make it a less than perfect option.  First, it assumes there is never any urgency to getting the job done and we can have a single encounter, then teleport home until tomorrow  no deadline, no "the hostages die at Noon", no "the stars will be right for the ritual in two days".  Second, it assumes that the enemy does nothing during our absence (related a bit to the first, but not deadline-centric).  They don't take the hint that someone keeps coming in once a day and bolster their defenses, lay traps, gear up to go nova themselves, etc.  Third, this ties up two L5 spell slots (one for there and one for back again), so it's eating up a resource.  At L9 a very significant resource, less so by L13 or so.

The spell itself is not unlimited.  Within 900+ miles, you should be able to have a location at least "studied carefully", but "very familiar/you feel at home" seems less likely, depending how wide ranging the game.  You can "study carefully) your point of return, but that takes an hour of study.  So do you stop after going nova to study this place or an hour, or restart out at the beginning so there's a landing point for you to be ambushed at? Teleporting home gives you a 2% chance of missing by 1 to 100% of your distance (perhaps in another danger zone, after you nova'd out all your spells) and a 1% chance at ending up off base, but probably at another Inn so no big deal.  Studied carefully gives you a 3% chance of missing, 2% of a similar area (what's similar to that dungeon you were headed back to?) and a 1% mishap possibility with a decent chance of ending up somewhere you didn't want to be as well.  Those numbers will come up sooner or later, especially when you Teleport twice a day.

You teleport yourself plus 1 person per 3 levels.  That's 4 size M creatures at L9, 5 at L12, 6 at L15.  How many in your party?  Don't forget the cohorts, animal companions, mounts, familiars, etc.  If the adventure includes guiding someone else through, or rescuing prisoners, that changes the dynamics quite a bit.  What about a "bring this traitor(s) to me alive to face the King's Justice" mission?  Or does the wizard take off without his buddies, so we have some party members stuck here in the danger zone?

Why don't NPC's use similar tactics?  Dont they have the same access to divination magic that PC casters use to render investigation irrelevant, the same scrying spells to "study carefully" the location the PC's use as their safe haven and the same teleportation magics to bring in their own ambush team when the PC's are resting?  Why don't their enemies use similar tactics to go nova, flee untracably and return at their leisure?



Ahnehnois said:


> How people handle magic item creation is apparently a big point of difference between groups. I never saw that players were willing to blow feats on item creation (trading out Scribe Scroll is a given), and I find that XP costs (back when I used XP) are anathema to players. This being a game about adventure, PCs also tend not to have a ton of downtime in my games (though there are exceptions). Also, item-based spells are useless if CL or DC matter at all.




The importance of these rules also depends on the availability of puchased magic.  Item creation makes it cheaper at the cost of xp and feats, but 3e commoditized magic to a significant degree, so item availability is pretty easy in many games.



Ahnehnois said:


> I've DMed...I don't remember how many wizards. Several, but not a ton. They invariably struggle to keep up with other PCs. Playing a wizard is more of a fun experiment than a quest for world domination. I find the same thing with NPC wizards; they tend to be less of a challenge then their level would suggest and running characters with spellbooks and memorized spells sucks. It's very hard to memorize optimal spells, and in 3.5 math, most saving throws are made. The powerful effects are there in the rules, but getting results in-game is pretty hard. Again, for me it's two birds in a bush.
> 
> I've had a ton of druids, because my games tend to be outdoors, perhaps. Useful, but never dominant.
> 
> Then again, my most recent experience was having an 11th level NPC druid sneak attack a party of 3 10th level PCs and one fairly weak NPC. Your PCs were a ranger, a monk, and a monstrous character with blink dog abilities and a couple levels of rogue (i.e. no real casters). I definitely optimized that druid and unleashed the rulebook on them, and the PCs totally owned him. None of his offensive spells could pierce their defenses, his animal companion was useless, and his wild shape forms did him no good. I find that happens frequently with casters; tons of options, but most of them don't work, and option paralysis sets in.




The advantage of teammates is pretty significant.  That solo wizard doesn't have a fighter and a rogue running interference for him, so he needs to devote a good portion of spell selection to keeping away from the enemy and allow him to cast his spells.  Really, what arcane caster solo needs any 4th level spells other than Dimension Door?  Why dont we see a party of four clerics, or four wizards?  Because, I suggest, the other classes also bring benefits to the table, and the team.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Because while a few players may want to choose solely based on style of narrative options, I suspect for most players character choice is a multi-dimensional thing. Where it sits on the style of narrative options is one variable. The fluff, style, power source (the flavor of how it delivers its options - the flavor) also matters.




This.  There are a lot of factors involved in what I want to play and flavour is a big part of them.



MJS said:


> And apparently, spell powers and skills allow these people to feel this way? I think those players should just play a goddamn fighter/mage and be done with it. It's not as if fighters are actually excluded from a narrative lead, or interaction, outside combat. That's ridiculous.
> Yeah, I think it really is a matter of playing more. "Interestingly" isn't the best way to say it. Get over the spell envy, and just do stuff. Ability to interact with the world is not a class ability, it is a measure of player / DM skill.
> In my opinion. Play what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law...




D&D Next is still in the development stage, which is why I feel free to say exactly what I want and why it isn't doing some things for me.

And the historic D&D wizard has the ability to turn straight to the DM and say "No.  It isn't happening."  Such as when the DM says that the enemies are coming through that exit to the cave.  A Wall of Stone means they aren't.

As for play what thou wilt being the whole of the law, this is what the whole argument is about.  One of the things I want to play is a genuinely competent thief-acrobat.  In D&D Next as it stands, tightrope walking is DC 25.  I can't even play a thief who can match a real world circus performer on a tightrope - or even walk reliably on one in my back garden.  A rogue therefore _does not fulfil my criteria to work as an acrobat_.  If I want to tightrope walk reliably, I'm going to need the Levitation spell.

But my normal reason for wanting to play a rogue is wanting to play something like one of the classic Mission Impossible team.  Something like the following ability (stolen from Spirit of the Century) would really help with the latex/alchemical masks and instant disguises.

[h=4]✪ Master of Disguise [Deceit][/h]Requires Clever Disguise and Mimicry.
The character can convincingly pass himself off as nearly anyone with a little time and preparation. To use this ability, the player pays a fate point and temporarily stops playing. His character is presumed to have donned a disguise and gone “off camera”. At any subsequent point during play the player may choose any nameless, filler character (a villain’s minion, a bellboy in the hotel, the cop who just pulled you over) in a scene and reveal that that character is actually the PC in disguise!

The character may remain in this state for as long as the player chooses, but if anyone is tipped off that he might be nearby, an investigator may spend a fate point and roll Investigate against the disguised character’s Deceit. If the investigator wins, his player (which may be the GM) gets to decide which filler character is actually the disguised PC (“Wait a minute – you’re the Emerald Emancipator!”).



In order to even approach such shenanigans in most versions of D&D I need actual explicit magic.  Much as I like the rogue archetype, a rogue who can't reliably walk on tightropes (and I mean walk rather than full scale high wire acts involving skipping, dancing, handstands, and unicycles) and who can't play reliable disguisey shenanigans isn't fulfilling what I want to do as a rogue.

If "Play what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" then where is the objection to letting me have my trickster-rogues?  The ones who are able to step in and say "What you've just seen wasn't actually what was going on".  And it's for the rogues far more than the fighters that I need the metagame abilities - especially if I want the rogues to stand a chance keeping up with the casters.



Manbearcat said:


> I wish I still had that post. I broke out so much in there.
> 
> Honestly, I just don't see this here.
> 
> ...




Just to put this into perspective, 1e soft-capped at level 9 and the game was intended to change at this point (indeed the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14).  And in 2e _the generalist wizard needs to explore for all their spells_.  One of the huge advantages a specialist wizard gets in 2e is a free spell each level.  Also Save or Suck isn't that reliable.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 25, 2013)

Tuft said:
			
		

> I was referring to the point where some, not necessarily you, want fighters to have equal amount of out-of-combat narrative control as other classes.




Well, right away one problem I see here is that the other classes don't have equal amount of non-combat narrative options among them, anyway. So which one is the fighter equalling?



> _I think somebody mentioned playing a card that made a wall climb "not a problem" being equal to a climb spell, for example. So I just used your post as a launch-board for wondering "If you *do* make the fighter equal in *all* sorts of narrative options, how can you afford to make him as good at fighting as the name implies?"_




The issue that I have here is that, if you've made all classes have equal narrative options in all other narrative situations (which is already a very difficult task to do), then giving them unequal narrative combat options is going to result in a lack of narrative balance - why not play a fighter if they're as good as everyone else in all other narrative contexts, and better than everyone else in a fight?



> _Or, if you, still in a theoretical non-existing system, make him superior at combat narrative, what narrative should he be inferior in?_




I find this to be a much more interesting question, as it depends on what other narratives are available (or at least likely to come up with some degree of regularity) and how you balance breadth of choice across multiple narratives with breadth of choice in one (e.g. at what point, if any, does mastery of one narrative justify a lack of options in another, or all others?).



> _Note that I am asking how things *ought* to be, *not* how they currently are in various D&D incarnations... _




I hesitate to get into "ought's," simply because that's purely a matter of personal opinion. What's good to me will be unpalatable to someone else.



Starfox said:


> This depends on what game you want to play, or rather on how much mud and grit you want in your game.




Hence why there's no consensus.



> _Since wizards that fly have always been a part of DnD, the DnD tradition is to have rather little mud - at least past level 5 or so. DnD is fantastic fantasy rather than gritty fantasy and should be balanced around that assumption. Nothing prevents a plug-in module or out-branching game to be more gritty, but that is not how DnD has been. Even "F*ing Fantasy Vietnam" has choppers and agent orange equivalents._




It's not necessarily that the game needs to be more gritty, per se. Rather, if you want to balance the fighter's overall narrative options by giving them a large degree of narrative options in combat, then other classes need to have less options in that particular area, otherwise the fighter is giving up narrative options is a hefty price that's earning them comparatively less than those other classes.

Now, that will impact those that want a high degree of narrative combat options for their spellcasters, true, but I'm not sure how that can be avoided if you subscribe the above paradigm.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 25, 2013)

N'raac said:


> [Various limitations and circumstantial factors affecting teleport usage/constant rest and recharging]



All legitimate points.



> Why don't NPC's use similar tactics?



That's always a big question. Anything the PCs can do, some NPC can do better.



> The importance of these rules also depends on the availability of puchased magic.  Item creation makes it cheaper at the cost of xp and feats, but 3e commoditized magic to a significant degree, so item availability is pretty easy in many games.



I know it is in mine. My PCs are typically drowning in items and generally are able to do commerce effectively when they are in an appropriate area. I suppose that is an additional disincentive to create one's own items.



> The advantage of teammates is pretty significant.  That solo wizard doesn't have a fighter and a rogue running interference for him, so he needs to devote a good portion of spell selection to keeping away from the enemy and allow him to cast his spells.  Really, what arcane caster solo needs any 4th level spells other than Dimension Door?  Why dont we see a party of four clerics, or four wizards?  Because, I suggest, the other classes also bring benefits to the table, and the team.



Or why doesn't your favorite football team field eleven quarterbacks?

Yeah, teamwork is pretty important.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I agree with most of your reasoning, but not with that the warlord has much in the way of narrative control - all warlord abilities are combat abilities.




I didn't say the Warlord did fit the bill.  I said there's an argument that it does.  Most importantly - the Warlord gets Diplomacy and Intimidation skills.  That means members of the class can be pretty strong players in Social scenes, which is a dramatic increase in the narrative space available over the fighter.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I didn't say the Warlord did fit the bill.  I said there's an argument that it does.  Most importantly - the Warlord gets Diplomacy and Intimidation skills.  That means members of the class can be pretty strong players in Social scenes, which is a dramatic increase in the narrative space available over the fighter.




But the fighter also gets Intimidate (in 3.X), and can take Diplomacy, albeit as a cross-class skill. So the increase isn't really very dramatic at all.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 25, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> And the historic D&D wizard has the ability to turn straight to the DM and say "No.  It isn't happening."  Such as when the DM says that the enemies are coming through that exit to the cave.  A Wall of Stone means they aren't.



Wizards get some power, but they can never tell the DM that something just isn't happening.

This example is very telling. A wall of stone only blocks travel in confined spaces without alternate routes. Those situations impose a lot of tactical limitations for all characters. It's the DM's choice in the first place to create such an environment and to have his NPCs using it. And it's a 5th level spell. An enemy that presents a challenge to a 9th or higher level character is probably going to be able to handle a stone wall fairly quickly. The wall is a nice option for stalling for a few minutes, maybe. And, it's entirely possible for nonmagical characters to cause a cave-in and achieve the same effect (my PCs have done that, actually). It might take a bit longer than 6 seconds, but then again, it doesn't cost a spell slot either.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> The thug variant, arguably the barbarian or any of the other martial classes




No, not really. The Thug, Barbarian, and Ranger are all light-armor, mobility types.  The rogue is technically a martial class, but plays nothing like a traditional fighter.  Paladins are religious warriors, specifically.  They are all there to be *distinct from* the fighter, rather than to be *like* the fighter, you see.  This is a part of the game design, and thus our basic problem.

As I noted - Wizards and clerics are designed to have a lot of flexibility in the class.  Fighters are designed only with flexibility in what they do in combat.  The Wizard can have fireballs or utility spells.  The fighter effectively *only* has a stack of different fireballs.  Why is that?  We'd all be served if they allowed the fighter to give up some of that combat specialization and trade it in for other things.  The sad thing is that this would be a perfect use of, say, 3e's feat system, but they didn't apply it in this way.



> and number of fighter prestige classes




So, I have to wait until we're in a mid-level game to have narrative space?  That's not a good solution at all.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> But the fighter also gets Intimidate (in 3.X), and can take Diplomacy, albeit as a cross-class skill. So the increase isn't really very dramatic at all.




When you only have two skill points from your class?  And one of the key skills you'd want for social scenes is cross-class - so, you have a skill cap of half what others do, *and* it costs more?  When none of your other abilities use the charisma you'd have to devote to use the skills properly?

Sorry, no, the difference is dramatic.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 25, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I hear this a lot. It carries a lot of implications that, to me, make it a less than perfect option. First, it assumes there is never any urgency to getting the job done and we can have a single encounter




No it doesn't.  It assumes that spending 2 spells to ensure a good night's rest and we progress faster if we sleep in warm beds.



> then teleport home until tomorrow no deadline, no "the hostages die at Noon"




A problem made easier by Teleport because we get a full powered ambush on the hostage takers, having bypassed their defences.



> Second, it assumes that the enemy does nothing during our absence (related a bit to the first, but not deadline-centric). They don't take the hint that someone keeps coming in once a day and bolster their defenses, lay traps, gear up to go nova themselves, etc.




They need to prepare every place we've spent five minutes.  This is a lot harder than attacking our campsite.



> Third, this ties up two L5 spell slots (one for there and one for back again), so it's eating up a resource. At L9 a very significant resource, less so by L13 or so.




Indeed.  L9 it's probably too much.  L11 a specialist wizard gets three spells a level higher.  L13 it's irrelevant.



> The spell itself is not unlimited. Within 900+ miles, you should be able to have a location at least "studied carefully", but "very familiar/you feel at home" seems less likely, depending how wide ranging the game.




You feel at home in your home base.  And somewhere you can see counts as studied carefully.  Which is why you get the scry and fry combo.  



> Those numbers will come up sooner or later, especially when you Teleport twice a day.




Indeed they will.  Which is why you carry a couple of _scrolls_ of teleport.



> How many in your party?




4



> Why don't NPC's use similar tactics?




It depends.  Most NPCs aren't spellcasters.  Most spellcasters don't care about the PCs.  And the tiny remainder?  Should.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> When you only have two skill points from your class?  And one of the key skills you'd want for social scenes is cross-class - so, you have a skill cap of half what others do, *and* it costs more?  When none of your other abilities use the charisma you'd have to devote to use the skills properly?
> 
> Sorry, no, the difference is dramatic.




If those are the criteria you're using - since the only differences you outlined in your previous post were that the fighter didn't have two particular skills, and the warlord did - then that's purely a matter of the skill systems used across editions, and is not that difficult to change (e.g. the difference in 3.X and Pathfinder).

In other words, that's not a narrative options issue so much as it is an issue of implementation of how skills work in the game.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> So, I have to wait until we're in a mid-level game to have narrative space?  That's not a good solution at all.



Don't all characters?


----------



## Starfox (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> The sad thing is that this would be a perfect use of, say, 3e's feat system, but they didn't apply it in this way.




Yes, I agree, feats (in both 3E and 4E) gave the initial impression that they'd give a lot of non-combat options, but in practice whose options were never competitive (except the much-maligned Leadership feat).


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Don't all characters?




No, they don't.  That's kind of the point.

In any case, the OP has asked several times now - this thread is supposed to be about *how* to implement this kind of thing, should you choose to.  

You don't want to?  That's fine.  You can even have a thread about how this is a bad idea, if you want.  But please stop distracting this thread from its core subject matter.  Thanks.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 25, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Yes, I agree, feats (in both 3E and 4E) gave the initial impression that they'd give a lot of non-combat options, but in practice whose options were never competitive (except the much-maligned Leadership feat).




In practice, that should depend on the kind of game you run. In a game like d20 Call of Cthulhu, in which combat is pretty deadly and knowledge skills particularly useful, we spent a lot of feats on skill enhancers. A D&D game with the same general sensibilities could encourage the same feat distribution. It's up to the kind of game that people want to play.

And that's at issue all over the D&D Next edition. How do you work in options to support the kinds of games people want to play and how do you balance things if portions of the balance between characters resides in a segment of the rules your particular game table doesn't happen to use? You could try a siloing method, but how many silos are you ultimately looking at and how many does it require to balance? Are sub-silos going to be involved like martial and spell combat within a broader combat silo? And what if a particular game manages to not use one or more of those sub-silos within a broader silo? How do you balance things then? Or should the game just present what it presents assuming a default mode of play and leave it up to the individual game groups to find their own balance within their play styles?


----------



## Starfox (Jun 25, 2013)

I was thinking of feats like this:



Neonchameleon said:


> [h=4]✪ Master of Disguise [Deceit][/h]Requires Clever Disguise and Mimicry.
> The character can convincingly pass himself off as nearly anyone with a little time and preparation. To use this ability, the player pays a fate point and temporarily stops playing. His character is presumed to have donned a disguise and gone “off camera”. At any subsequent point during play the player may choose any nameless, filler character (a villain’s minion, a bellboy in the hotel, the cop who just pulled you over) in a scene and reveal that that character is actually the PC in disguise!
> 
> The character may remain in this state for as long as the player chooses, but if anyone is tipped off that he might be nearby, an investigator may spend a fate point and roll Investigate against the disguised character’s Deceit. If the investigator wins, his player (which may be the GM) gets to decide which filler character is actually the disguised PC (“Wait a minute – you’re the Emerald Emancipator!”).




Such abilites could have been feats, available to players who prefer to do things this way rather than taking half the play session to play out the above example. And they could be available to anyone with decent Disguise skill.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 25, 2013)

billd91 said:


> And that's at issue all over the D&D Next edition. How do you work in options to support the kinds of games people want to play and how do you balance things if portions of the balance between characters resides in a segment of the rules your particular game table doesn't happen to use?




It seems to me the easiest way to do this would be through skills and feats by, perhaps, introducing separate skill/feat point tracks much the same way Pathfinder has different xp tracks for different styles of play?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 25, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Such abilites could have been feats, available to players who prefer to do things this way rather than taking half the play session to play out the above example. And they could be available to anyone with decent Disguise skill.




Well, I think that this conceivably treads on the fringes of some of the problems that 3.0 had, where there were certain actions that couldn't be taken without the requisite feat, but which seemed common enough that no feat should have been necessary (e.g. sundering a weapon).

I think that if you want to make narrative options something that aren't directly tied to a class, but function as exception-based options (e.g. "you can't do this, unless you take X which says that you can"), then you're starting to get away from the idea of classes altogether (at least for large areas of narrative ability).


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 25, 2013)

billd91 said:


> In practice, that should depend on the kind of game you run. In a game like d20 Call of Cthulhu, in which combat is pretty deadly and knowledge skills particularly useful, we spent a lot of feats on skill enhancers. A D&D game with the same general sensibilities could encourage the same feat distribution. It's up to the kind of game that people want to play.
> 
> And that's at issue all over the D&D Next edition. How do you work in options to support the kinds of games people want to play and how do you balance things if portions of the balance between characters resides in a segment of the rules your particular game table doesn't happen to use? You could try a siloing method, but how many silos are you ultimately looking at and how many does it require to balance? Are sub-silos going to be involved like martial and spell combat within a broader combat silo? And what if a particular game manages to not use one or more of those sub-silos within a broader silo? How do you balance things then? Or should the game just present what it presents assuming a default mode of play and leave it up to the individual game groups to find their own balance within their play styles?




All good questions. I think another question is, how do you balance it at a table with different play-preference at the same table?

One method may be to make sure every option has a combat, exploration (and/or investigation, I'm not convinced they're different but accept that others may), and social function. Each option (whether its through feats, abilities, skills, etc) gives you a use within each tier. Then by default, it doesn't matter if your table is more interested in combat or investigation, you know that any option you choose will contain elements usable in that particular playstyle. 

Brutal
- Combat (power attack)
- Exploration (Break down doors)
- Social (intimidation)

Ambidextrous
- Combat (two weapon fighting)
- Exploration (disable device)
- Social (slight of hand)

Anyway, something like that. These can be either generic flat bonuses, adv/div 5e mechanic when doing it, or a specific power that activates when you're preforming that action (more like 4e powers).


----------



## N'raac (Jun 25, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> And the historic D&D wizard has the ability to turn straight to the DM and say "No.  It isn't happening."  Such as when the DM says that the enemies are coming through that exit to the cave.  A Wall of Stone means they aren't.




Actually, I'd suggest it means a roll for initiative to see how many enemies have an opportunity to get past the exit before you cast your Wall of Stone.



Neonchameleon said:


> As for play what thou wilt being the whole of the law, this is what the whole argument is about.  One of the things I want to play is a genuinely competent thief-acrobat.  In D&D Next as it stands, tightrope walking is DC 25.  I can't even play a thief who can match a real world circus performer on a tightrope - or even walk reliably on one in my back garden.  A rogue therefore _does not fulfil my criteria to work as an acrobat_.  If I want to tightrope walk reliably, I'm going to need the Levitation spell.




This is a clear issue with skill DC's.  To my mind, a L1 character who has made the maximum investment in ranks of a class skill carying a pole should be capable o Taking 10 to walk a tightrope successfully.  Even with average INT, a character with even a moderate skill focus should also have suficient resources to be similarly skilled in at least a couple of other areas.  So, for me, that means a 10 INT character with 4 skill points per level should require 1 rank to tightrope walk.  In Pathfinder, that rank (+1) plus a class skill (+3) plus that balancing pole (+2 for perfect equipment) can Take 10 for a 16.  So DC 15 it is.



Neonchameleon said:


> If "Play what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" then where is the objection to letting me have my trickster-rogues?  The ones who are able to step in and say "What you've just seen wasn't actually what was going on".  And it's for the rogues far more than the fighters that I need the metagame abilities - especially if I want the rogues to stand a chance keeping up with the casters.




I like that Disguise ability being a Feat with a prerequisite of, say, 4 or 5 ranks in Disguise.  I'd also like that Feat to be available as a Pathfinder Rogue Trick, or simply a group of bonus feats made available to Rogues like combat feats are available to fighters (ie every other level).



Neonchameleon said:


> Just to put this into perspective, 1e soft-capped at level 9 and the game was intended to change at this point (indeed the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14).  And in 2e _the generalist wizard needs to explore for all their spells_.  One of the huge advantages a specialist wizard gets in 2e is a free spell each level.  Also Save or Suck isn't that reliable.




1e/2e were pretty quiet about wizards gaining spells.  Most groups I gamed with provided a few spells at each new spell level.  SoS (anything allowing a save) had declining reliability as levels increased, for sure a major change in the move to 3e.  But then wizards in 1e/2e did not get bonus spells for high INT.



Ahnehnois said:


> I know it is in mine. My PCs are typically drowning in items and generally are able to do commerce effectively when they are in an appropriate area. I suppose that is an additional disincentive to create one's own items.




Items are still half price, but it definitely makes item creation a "nice to have" more than a "clear choice".  Which is what any feat should be.



Neonchameleon said:


> No it doesn't.  It assumes that spending 2 spells to ensure a good night's rest and we progress faster if we sleep in warm beds.




We progress slower with one encounter per day than with three or four.



Neonchameleon said:


> A problem made easier by Teleport because we get a full powered ambush on the hostage takers, having bypassed their defences.




Provided we can teleport directly to the hostage takers, rather than needing to move through the area to get to them.  And how considerate of you to arrive in a tight group, all holding hands, with the wizard in the center (well, part of the chain, anyway).  Very handy for those enemy Fireballs and Lightning Bolts.  Why dont the hostage takers use the commoditization of magic items to have an anti-teleport device?



Neonchameleon said:


> They need to prepare every place we've spent five minutes.  This is a lot harder than attacking our campsite.




They need to prepare the area you will pass through next.  Or they need to pack up and leave in the 23.75 hours you aren't around.  Or they need to scry & fry you in your nice warm beds.  If their home base isn't defended against that, how is it possible that yours is.



Neonchameleon said:


> Indeed.  L9 it's probably too much.  L11 a specialist wizard gets three spells a level higher.  L13 it's irrelevant.




I think that's about right.  Spells 2 levels lower than my max level definitely are scoured for long-term benefit and/or utility spells.  But then, at L13 I can get that nifty Teleport Without Error...



Neonchameleon said:


> You feel at home in your home base.




Provided home base is within the Teleport range (which should commonly be the case, at least somewhere close enough - hence I used those odds in my example).  And provided no one trashes it to the point it is now "an otherwise familiar location that no longer exists as such or has been so completely altered as to no longer be familiar to you".  That's a nasty trick for a group heavily reliant on teleportation.  And, if you are famous adventurers, the aproximate location of your home base should not be all that tough to ferret out.



Neonchameleon said:


> And somewhere you can see counts as studied carefully.  Which is why you get the scry and fry combo.






			
				rules as written said:
			
		

> “Studied carefully” is a place you know well, either because you can currently see it, you’ve been there often, or you have used other means (such as scrying) to study the place for at least one hour.




How, exactly, are you scrying? The Scry spell has some pretty specific rules.  To me, the fact that scrying to study for at least an hour is mentioned specifically means scrying is not the same as "can currenty see it".



Neonchameleon said:


> Indeed they will.  Which is why you carry a couple of _scrolls_ of teleport.




Which is money (and time if you scribe them) not used for other tools.



Neonchameleon said:


> It depends.  Most NPCs aren't spellcasters.  Most spellcasters don't care about the PCs.  And the tiny remainder?  Should.




So why do the enemies the PC's rack up not have the good sense to hire spellcasters.  If magic items are a commodity, there must be plenty around.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 25, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Then again, my most recent experience was having an 11th level NPC druid sneak attack a party of 3 10th level PCs and one fairly weak NPC. Your PCs were a ranger, a monk, and a monstrous character with blink dog abilities and a couple levels of rogue (i.e. no real casters). I definitely optimized that druid and unleashed the rulebook on them, and the PCs totally owned him. None of his offensive spells could pierce their defenses, his animal companion was useless, and his wild shape forms did him no good. I find that happens frequently with casters; tons of options, but most of them don't work, and option paralysis sets in.




This one seems pretty obvious: wall of thorns on the surprised PCs, then spells that damage an area (wall of fire, swarms) and let them burn.  The blink dog rogue presents a challenge, but you could probably turn into a bear and grapple him to death (even though he'll escape it'll take him a standard action to do it, and you can just grab him again).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 25, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> This one seems pretty obvious: wall of thorns on the surprised PCs, then spells that damage an area (wall of fire, swarms) and let them burn.  The blink dog rogue presents a challenge, but you could probably turn into a bear and grapple him to death (even though he'll escape it'll take him a standard action to do it, and you can just grab him again).



Trying to grapple a creature that can teleport without spending an action would have been rather pointless, except in that it would have exposed the druid to being sneak attacked with the rogue's light weapons. I didn't have wall of thorns handy, but even if I had, I doubt it would have contained them for very long, and the monk had high AC and DR/magic that would have rendered the damage irrelevant for him anyway, and monk and ranger had high Str. Also, all of them had ref saves and evasion, and several of them had other resistances, making area damage a pretty pointless exercise. I did try an area damage force spell, but it didn't do enough. I also tried flying and shooting down from above, which didn't work because of the blink dog, and then transformed into a tendriculos, which has regeneration that I thought would help, until the monk and his bludgeoning attacks bypassed that and completely wasted him in one round.

I didn't have much time (in character) to think about this one, but challenging 10th level characters that are mostly martial and have little magic is hard, even if you use magic to do it.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 25, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Trying to grapple a creature that can teleport without spending an action would have been rather pointless, except in that it would have exposed the druid to being sneak attacked with the rogue's light weapons.




I didn't realize that he could do it as a free action once per round and still act.  Still, though, on his own he'd be in tough, even blinking.  A huge air elemental could track him down and would be immune to his sneak attacks.



Ahnehnois said:


> I didn't have wall of thorns handy, but even if I had, I doubt it would have contained them for very long, and the monk had high AC and DR/magic that would have rendered the damage irrelevant for him anyway, and monk and ranger had high Str.




Wall of Thorns is pretty bad-ass.  The damage it deals doesn't really matter: they probably can't move, as it's a full round action to make a DC 25 strength check to move 5'.  That's what you want to do - keep them pinned in while your swarms (or whatever) eat them alive.  A wind wall will keep their ranged attacks from getting through, if necessary.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 25, 2013)

Summon a horde of Air Elementals and Whirlwind them to terminal velocity height and drop them repeatedly until they die from HP ablation or massive damage DC failure.

Pre-fight Stoneskin and Windwall > Natural Spell > Fly up > Wall of Stone them into an inescapable shooting gallery and Murderous Mist, Swarm and Produce Flame them to death.  

Summon a non-stop army or Nature Allies with Wands and your own spell slots.  Save spell slots for Stoneskin, Regeneration, Magic Fang, Barkskin etc (and the other big buff spells), take the right assemblage of Wild Shape Feats and augmenting magic items and then just clean them up with your animal companion after your army has nom-nommed them.

Spike Stones a giant AoE (eleven 20 ft squares) worth of area for the  next 11 hours and watch them kill themselves as they try to move through  it...and if they don't kill themselves by standing still, then just fly  behind a Wind Wall and pew-pew them to death.

Maybe a few Reached Poisons on the same target to bypass Evasion to lower their HPs dramatically or outright kill them (4d10 Con).

 Tree Stride/fly for getaway if you need to and repeat tomorrow while they're licking their wounds.  And the next day if need be.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 26, 2013)

I still think that the Background Traits need to be where we look to for inspiration for how 5e might assemble director stance and author stance narrative authority.  They read as insurance; in some ways similar to BW's Instincts.  

Look at Salt of the Earth.  If you're a Commoner, you can expect to invoke this Trait to find a place to hide, rest, recuperate.  What's more, you can _expect_ to be shielded from the law or pursuit.  

Look at Spy's Contact.  Its basically a Divination ability that just _works_.  How it works could be up to you.

Same thing with Bounty Hunter and Bounty Board.  There will be a listing of criminals needed to be detained.  You will secure the warrant or legal authority to carry out your effort.  Your reputation gives you contacts in the town watch or guard.  Very similar to writing your own quests in 4e.  

Having multiple resources such as these to deploy, that are assured to manifest within the shared imaginary space, are pretty much what is needed to endow a Martial character with non-combat conflict resolution and Transition Scene legitimacy.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

Yeah, background is the place to go  for contacts - which can be very useful narrative tools.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2013)

Starfox said:


> The more we talk about this, the more I feel the term "narrative space" is misleading, and the more I lean into the "three pillars" model - Combat, Exploration, Social. What we call narrative abilities are abilities that fall under the last two pillars.



No, Starfox, no!

I like your "narrative space" formulation much better than a "3 pillars" formulation - even though, as I posted upthread, I want to break narrative space into a "plot determined by action resolution mechanics" component and a "scene framing determined by scene framing guidelines/mechanics" component.

The problem with focusing it on the "three pillars" is that you don't have the tools to properly analyse the following two conrasting options: the ranger has mechanics for tracking, navigating, etc - ie _engaging_ an exploration challenge - whereas the wizard has mechanics for scrying in on the missing whatsits and then teleporting to where they are - ie _bypassing_ an exploration challenge and reframing it as a "pick up the whatsits" scene.

Or in the social sphere: there is a big difference between a Burning Wheel Duel of Wits, or a 4e skill challenge run per the DMG guidlines, which require the players to _engage_ the situation by declaring action, making rolls and having the GM adjudicate the unflding situation; compared to a Charm Spell or the most literal reading of a 3E Diplomacy roll, which doesn't engage the challenge but simply reframes it as one containing a friend rather than a potentially hostile independent personality.

Suppose that the player of a fighter had a "scene reframing" power of some sort such that, in any non-combat situation, s/he could change it into a combat one (eg it might be a taunt power, that turns non-hostile NPCs hostile; or a "challenge the spirits" power, so that in an exploration situation the nature spirits can be forced to duel with the PC, and if the PC wins they will lead the party where the PCs want to go). In this case, it wouldn't matter that the fighter's action resolution abilities were confined to combat, because the player would never have to engage any other sort of situation.

A further element that I didn't mention upthread but that [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] have both flagged is "content introduction": ie who has the authority to introduce new content/backstory into the game. Giving players of martial PCs this sort of power (eg the player of a rogue can simply "declare" old friends and contacts in a city which is, from the point of view of actual play events, a new city - d20 Conan permits this sort of thing with Fate Points) can be one way of trying to balance spellcasters scene reframing power.

If you turn the discussion into a 3 pillars discussion you lose what I think are these key analytical distinctions for understanding how the game unfolds.



Manbearcat said:


> I still think that the Background Traits need to be where we look to for inspiration for how 5e might assemble director stance and author stance narrative authority.



I agree with this. They're the most interesting part to date of D&Dnext design, in my view.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> in 3.5 math, most saving throws are made.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if anything I've modified the rules to encourage that, as spell points and standard spell DCs (i.e. all spells are one DC instead of lower-level spells being garbage) make it easier.



My understanding of 3E maths is that making saving throws is quite hard.

Eg at 1st level a fighter's Will save might be +1 at best, I would have thought (WIS of 12 or 13) whereas the DC against a Charm Person spell would be 10+1 (for level) +3 or 4 (for a 16 or 18 INT) = 14 or 15. So around a 1/3 chance to save. And the DC will scale more quickly than the save bonus.

If you are making save DCs of low level spells higher in your game, I'm surprised that you don't find casters stronger than you do.



N'raac said:


> I hear this a lot.  It carries a lot of implications that, to me, make it a less than perfect option.  First, it assumes there is never any urgency to getting the job done and we can have a single encounter, then teleport home until tomorrow  no deadline, no "the hostages die at Noon", no "the stars will be right for the ritual in two days".



No. It assumes that _sometimes_ the players (and their PCs) can control the pace. The more that "sometimes" trends towards "often", the stronger this use of Teleport becomes.



N'raac said:


> The spell itself is not unlimited.  Within 900+ miles, you should be able to have a location at least "studied carefully", but "very familiar/you feel at home" seems less likely, depending how wide ranging the game.



London to Prague is less than 650 miles, from London to Warsaw less than 900. That covers your basic pseudo-European campaign.

The distance from London to Moscow is less than 1600 miles, from Hong Kong to Tokyo is less than 1800 miles - so I can do these jumps in two hops, or from a base half-way between the two locations can adventure in either. That covers a more far-ranging pseudo-European campaign, or a pseudo-East Asian one.

I'm not saying that it's impossible that distance should matter, but 900 miles is a long way within the context of a fantasy pseudo-mediaeval setting.



N'raac said:


> Why don't NPC's use similar tactics?  Dont they have the same access to divination magic that PC casters use to render investigation irrelevant, the same scrying spells to "study carefully" the location the PC's use as their safe haven and the same teleportation magics to bring in their own ambush team when the PC's are resting?  Why don't their enemies use similar tactics to go nova, flee untracably and return at their leisure?



I the last campaign that featured PCs doing this, the PCs lived in the Imperial palace, working as servitors/advisors to the Great Kingdom. That is a hard safe haven to ambush!

More generally, I think introducing game elements that depend for a fictionally-established/mediated balance of terror to ensure their playability is not a recipe for stable design. You don't need to tweak the parameters of the fiction very much for the balance to break down (as when the PCs live in the Imperial Palace).



N'raac said:


> We progress slower with one encounter per day than with three or four.



It may be that, within the fiction, the PCs progress slower. But in my experience players care about the rate of progression in the real world, not in the fiction.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Suppose that the player of a fighter had a "scene reframing" power of some sort such that, in any non-combat situation, s/he could change it into a combat one (eg it might be a taunt power, that turns non-hostile NPCs hostile; or a "challenge the spirits" power, so that in an exploration situation the nature spirits can be forced to duel with the PC, and if the PC wins they will lead the party where the PCs want to go). In this case, it wouldn't matter that the fighter's action resolution abilities were confined to combat, because the player would never have to engage any other sort of situation.




It's 1 am here now, too late for a serious reply, but I can say this... Fighters DO have that power -it is called "fist to the face" and trumps almost any other scene-framing power (such as Diplomacy or Charm), turning what could have been a social encounter into a combat encounter. Of course, using this in the king's hall might have side effects. I had this happen in a 4E skill challenge to get a door open - there was basically 2 ways to proceed, bash the door open or talk those inside into opening it. One player started talking, another player started bashing... Not quite compatible tactics.


----------



## Balesir (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Suppose that the player of a fighter had a "scene reframing" power of some sort such that, in any non-combat situation, s/he could change it into a combat one (eg it might be a taunt power, that turns non-hostile NPCs hostile; or a "challenge the spirits" power, so that in an exploration situation the nature spirits can be forced to duel with the PC, and if the PC wins they will lead the party where the PCs want to go). In this case, it wouldn't matter that the fighter's action resolution abilities were confined to combat, because the player would never have to engage any other sort of situation.



To be fair, I have seen this in play - we called it "the twang of diplomacy" 

(The 'twang' was made by a bowstring being loosed...)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My understanding of 3E maths is that making saving throws is quite hard.
> ...
> If you are making save DCs of low level spells higher in your game, I'm surprised that you don't find casters stronger than you do.



I suppose your understanding of the "spine" math as it were, is correct. However, this does not account for the fact that it is much easier to get saving throw bonuses than DC bonuses. Cloaks of Resistance are perhaps the single most prevalent "Christmas Tree effect" item, and are very cheap. Ability boosters are also ubiquitous (which, to be fair, balances out). Feats taken to improve saves are also more common and more effective than DC-based feats.

At 1st level, before the magic bonuses come into play, I'm inclined to agree that saves are hard. But they very quickly become easy, and casters at 1st level can't do that much. At higher levels, good saves tend to be made on base save + ability + resistance alone, while characters tend to spend a lot of resources boosting their weaker ones.

In my current three-PC 10th level party, for example, the lowest save value is a monstrous character (who has lost several HD to level adjustment) rogue with a will save bonus of +10. A 10th level caster's best spell DC is 15 + ability modifier + feats. With some effort, he might be able to break through. However, the next lowest bonus is +12, and the highest is +20, not counting a few situational bonuses as well. IMC, there's also action points shifting math in the defender's direction, but even without those, a decent on-level caster trying to beat a saving throw is going to fail pretty often. And those failures tend to be pretty costly.

If I left the default 10 + spell level + ability mod DC in place, a 1st level spell would almost never have any effect (if it required a save). I look at standardizing the DC's as serving a similar function to the TB iterative attack rules, which remove the lower iterative attacks that never hit competitive targets at high levels.


----------



## n00bdragon (Jun 26, 2013)

A big problem with saving throws in the d20 system is that people who can't force you to roll against them (read: spellcasters) can generally pick and choose one of the three saves you are weakest at. Frail caster? Toss a fort save. Stupid ogre? Toss a will save. It doesn't help that creatures tend to have abilities scores that increase the saves they are already good at, and even that barely keeps them ahead of the DC curve. Poor saves languish as they increase with HD much slower and often powered by stats that never rise above human normal. A caster has just one stat that increases the save DCs of all his spells. This is one reason saving throws as written are a problem (though I must stress it is not even the elephant in the room as far as d20 magic problems go, this is small time stuff).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

n00bdragon said:


> A caster has just one stat that increases the save DCs of all his spells.



That is a problem with most of the classes as written. I've taken a cue from some of the late 3.5 classes and given all spellcasters MAD considerations (that is, they need one ability score to learn and cast the spells and another for DCs). This is an obvious oversight within the d20 system; there is no reason to have spellcasters be SAD other than heritage.



> Poor saves languish as they increase with HD much slower and often powered by stats that never rise above human normal.



I'm also a believer in medium saves. There are way too many poor saves and not enough granularity.



> Frail caster? Toss a fort save. Stupid ogre? Toss a will save.



True enough. That's the only reason they ever work. Trying to beat a rogue's ref is usually a fool's errand. It is worth noting with regards to the latter example, though, that because monster HD are weaker than levels, players tend to face giants and the like who have way more HD than them, to the point where even their bad saves are pretty good.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2013)

Starfox said:


> It's 1 am here now, too late for a serious reply, but I can say this... Fighters DO have that power -it is called "fist to the face" and trumps almost any other scene-framing power (such as Diplomacy or Charm), turning what could have been a social encounter into a combat encounter. Of course, using this in the king's hall might have side effects.





Balesir said:


> To be fair, I have seen this in play - we called it "the twang of diplomacy"



Both fair comments. What I had in mind was something extra - generally when this happens the GM marks it up as a "fail"/"disadvantage" ingame (eg everyone sees the fighter as a violent thug), whereas I was thinking of an ability which would, in the fiction, make the fighter not seem like the aggressor, but rather defending him-/herself against unwarranted assault in a social context.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> No, Starfox, no!
> 
> I like your "narrative space" formulation much better than a "3 pillars" formulation - even though, as I posted upthread, I want to break narrative space into a "plot determined by action resolution mechanics" component and a "scene framing determined by scene framing guidelines/mechanics" component.
> 
> ...




This is a great post (can't xp unfortunately) and really nails down the key distinctions between "engaging with" a scene (via mundane task resolution) and "dictating to/outright reframing" a scene (via resources that allow outright narrative imposition).  The latter is what we're ruminating upon in this conversation.  

"I roll a Streetwise check to try to find some rumors about the relationship between the Dutchess and the Master of Coin" is quite different from "a breathless courtier catches up to me, reaches into his satchel between huffs, hands me a rolled parchment bearing one of the red herring wax seals of my contact - 'Misty Springs Spa, Suite 103, tonight' ."


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> In my current three-PC 10th level party, for example, the lowest save value is a monstrous character (who has lost several HD to level adjustment) rogue with a will save bonus of +10. A 10th level caster's best spell DC is 15 + ability modifier + feats. With some effort, he might be able to break through.



Admittedly 3E is not my game, but I'm looking at this and thinking 15 + 6 or more for stat (surely the typical 10th level caster has at least a 22 in their casting stat) +2 for Greater Spell Focus for a DC of 23 - ie the rogue needs 13 plus, or in other words has a 60% chance of failing.

And for PCs against monsters the odds would be better, wouldn't they? Eg a CR 9 Frost Giant has +3 Ref, +6 Will and even if I swap out some feats for Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will these are still lower than your rogue's worst save. I could give the Giant a Cloak of Resistance, I guess, but that might start to have weird treasure and world-building implications.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 26, 2013)

@*pemerton* Add Owl's Wisdom buff (or a Periapt of Wisdom if you want to reward the Monk with proper victory spoils) for another + 2 to spell DCs.  

Not to mention there are plenty of SoS for 3.x Druids, spells that target Fort (eg Poison) or, worse yet, a gigantic AoE field of death in Spike Stones that lasts forever and gives no saves versus its primary effect;  Impede progress through an area and deal damage. Any creature  moving on foot into or through the spell’s area moves at half speed.  In addition, each creature moving through the area takes 1d8  points of piercing damage for each 5 feet of movement through the spiked  area.  Devastating control for 3 melee characters.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My understanding of 3E maths is that making saving throws is quite hard.
> 
> Eg at 1st level a fighter's Will save might be +1 at best, I would have thought (WIS of 12 or 13) whereas the DC against a Charm Person spell would be 10+1 (for level) +3 or 4 (for a 16 or 18 INT) = 14 or 15. So around a 1/3 chance to save. And the DC will scale more quickly than the save bonus.




Note that for a low level fighter, that save is actually better than the save in 1e. Plus, resistance bonuses *really are* substantially cheaper than ways to pump the DC. However, the caster has a lot of incentive to pump that DC modifying stat while targets generally have multiple things they want to buy and don't want to just max out saves and definitely don't want to pump the stats further to drive the saves up more.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Admittedly 3E is not my game, but I'm looking at this and thinking 15 + 6 or more for stat (surely the typical 10th level caster has at least a 22 in their casting stat) +2 for Greater Spell Focus for a DC of 23 - ie the rogue needs 13 plus, or in other words has a 60% chance of failing.



In other words, if the attacking caster is able to pick the best situation out of the entire group, he has a 40% chance of spending his turn doing nothing. That's not great. And if he's attacking, say, a monk, his odds are a lot worse. I also find that SF feats are something that people took when the core rules came out, but gravitated away from as more feats came out (a decision you might question), and it's very hard to get to the point where you have them for multiple schools so you can target your save of choice.



> And for PCs against monsters the odds would be better, wouldn't they? Eg a CR 9 Frost Giant has +3 Ref, +6 Will and even if I swap out some feats for Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will these are still lower than your rogue's worst save. I could give the Giant a Cloak of Resistance, I guess, but that might start to have weird treasure and world-building implications.



Don't get me started on CRs. That said, monsters are likely to have lower magical save bonuses, but also tend to have immunities. Even giants are immune to will save effects that target humanoids (of which there are many), and they're not going to fail a lot of fort saves. Targeting their ref makes sense, but they tend to have a lot of hp, and ref saves tend to be for straight damage.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> In other words, if the attacking caster is able to pick the best situation out of the entire group, he has a 40% chance of spending his turn doing nothing. That's not great.



My gut analysis is a bit different. Eg use Confusion (perhaps Heightened to 5th level to increase the DC) and have a 60% chance of hitting the rogue who then has an 80% chance of being taken out, plus some (lesser) chance of hitting the other PCs - even if those chances are only 20% (ie save on a 5+) that would be only a 5% chance or so of doing nothing, assuming 3 targets in addition to the rogue. Which to me looks pretty strong.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Suppose that the player of a fighter had a "scene reframing" power of some sort such that, in any non-combat situation, s/he could change it into a combat one (eg it might be a taunt power, that turns non-hostile NPCs hostile; or a "challenge the spirits" power, so that in an exploration situation the nature spirits can be forced to duel with the PC, and if the PC wins they will lead the party where the PCs want to go). In this case, it wouldn't matter that the fighter's action resolution abilities were confined to combat, because the player would never have to engage any other sort of situation.




I like this. Rather than think about it in terms of moving the classes into other space where they've been traditionally weak, move the space to the them, where they aren't. Interesting.

My first thought was the episode Shindig from Firefly, where it scene changes from a social contract negotiation to a duel. If Mal wins, he gets the contract, if he loses, well, he's dead anyway so it doesn't matter.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My gut analysis is a bit different. Eg use Confusion (perhaps Heightened to 5th level to increase the DC) and have a 60% chance of hitting the rogue who then has an 80% chance of being taken out, plus some (lesser) chance of hitting the other PCs - even if those chances are only 20% (ie save on a 5+) that would be only a 5% chance or so of doing nothing, assuming 3 targets in addition to the rogue. Which to me looks pretty strong.



Confusion is kind of a bad example; you still have a 20% chance of acting normally (and another chance of attacking randomly, which may help or hurt) and still have your defenses. There's Hold Person, which could be lethal but which allows another save each round. Most of the nastier effects (flesh to stone, slay living) are tied to fort saves. Even so, at this level many of these effects are subject to being removed, situational bonuses abound, and SR is even in play at this point.

That being said, if you look at what a solid martial character can do, his chance of disabling or killing the weakest target isn't much worse. I'm of the mind that there should be more disabling effects, but even in our level 10 example, a full attack from a decent attacker can kill opponents in 1 round. A high-damage character (say a barbarian with a x3 crit weapon) can very realistically kill a spellcaster in one hit.

And there are a lot of variables as to how much time and space is available and how much the characters know about each other's strengths and weaknesses and what their abilities are, so it's hard to make blanket conclusions, but I often find that the chance of save-based effects is barely high enough to allow spellcasters to remain competitive in a fight.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> No, Starfox, no!
> 
> I like your "narrative space" formulation much better than a "3 pillars" formulation - even though, as I posted upthread, I want to break narrative space into a "plot determined by action resolution mechanics" component and a "scene framing determined by scene framing guidelines/mechanics" component.




Hm, good point you make here. What I meant to say about the three pillars is that the word "narrative" in this context is so badly defined that it is actually useless. We spent pages on this thread just trying to find a definition, and the best we came up with was "non-combat". Compared to that, the three pillars do seem like an improvement - and the pillars being three (not just combat/noncombat) implies there might be more, so there is room for considerations like "investigation". Still, we can't make the pillars too many, or they outweigh combat - a lot of table time is spent on combat, and thus combat abilities matter alot.

But as you point out, there is another possible meaning of "narrative powers", and that is what you call scene framing. Like the infiltration power mentioned upthread, which is really a subplot resolved in an abstract manner. And some spells fall into that category, but DnD mainly shies away from such powers, especially for martial characters. DnD has traditionally been much too stimulationist to include off-stage events as powers. Perhaps those who deride this discussion and say martial characters should use what abilities they have instead of complaining have a point here - if you want to get the effect of as spell through hard work and skill, you should play that out and not ask the rules to give it to you for free. At the same time, if there are two possible ways to do something - one involving an hour or more of difficult role-play, the other involving a simple spell, most parties will take the spell, letting the spellcaster outshine the rouge. In 4E when many of these powers were made into lengthy rituals, some of my players complained that the magic got pre-empted by cruder but faster mundane solutions - a complete turnaround from earlier editions. Balance is so hard to achieve.

So, where does this lead us? Well, primarily it lets us refine our language, breaking up the fuzzy term "narrative" into different sub-meanings that are more useful and comprehensible, such as the "three pillars" and "scene framing" - tough I still think we need a better term for the later. We need to develop the concepts and tools before we can come to grips with the problem itself.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

Saves in 3.5 was also made easier by the frequent use of prestige classes and multiclassing.



Ahnehnois said:


> It is worth noting with regards to the latter example, though, that because monster HD are weaker than levels, players tend to face giants and the like who have way more HD than them, to the point where even their bad saves are pretty good.




This is a particular problem with the low challenge rating per HD critters, like undead and vermin - a Colossal vermin almost always makes it's saving throw. And it's own HD-based saving throw DCs get ridiculous too - or at least it was like that in 3.5. Now when I check it seems they upped the challenge rating of these critters in Pathfinder.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 26, 2013)

Well, that calls into question the very idea that monster Hit Dice are "weaker" than class levels. This mainly seems to come from the idea that class levels have special class features, whereas monster Hit Dice only have the basics (e.g. hit points, BAB, saves, and skill points), though this is somewhat ameliorated by monsters having special powers to buoy them.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Well, that calls into question the very idea that monster Hit Dice are "weaker" than class levels. This mainly seems to come from the idea that class levels have special class features, whereas monster Hit Dice only have the basics (e.g. hit points, BAB, saves, and skill points), though this is somewhat ameliorated by monsters having special powers to buoy them.



On a one-for-one basis, they generally are, though the variation between dragons and constructs is rather large. It's only the idea of CRs that confuses the issue.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> On a one-for-one basis, they generally are, though the variation between dragons and constructs is rather large. It's only the idea of CRs that confuses the issue.




True. In that regard, I quite enjoyed the distinction that the Trailblazer Teratologue made between "CR" and "spine CR."

The latter denoted its CR based purely on the "spine" of the monster - that is, the aforementioned BAB, Hit Dice/points, and saves (and, I suppose, the derived stats, like its total attack bonuses, etc.) - whereas the latter took into account everything, including the "spine" of the monster and its special powers, spell-like abilities, etc. By comparing the ratio of the spine CR to the full CR, you could get a sense of how much of the monster needed to rely on  hanging back and using its special abilities, rather than just wading into melee, to get the full effect of its CR.

I found that to be a very useful guide on how to put the monsters to best effect, and get them to perform at their Challenge Rating.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

[MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION]
I don't use CRs at all, but I do find this idea interesting, and despite having the original TB, I haven't check out the Teratologue.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 26, 2013)

I would really be curious how these 3 martial, melee characters with no legitimate vertical axis mobility are going to deal with a giant field of no-save Spike Stones (1/2 move, d8 damage/5 feet moved in a giant AoE field around them), Large/Huge (uncrittable and non-sneakable) Air Elementals that can pick them up and drop them to the ground for massive damage threshold, Reach Poisons attacking Fort at DC 25ish with Owls Wisdom (level 10 characters shouldn't have much more than a 12 as their best save - maybe 14 with feat investment - and more likely a 10ish), against an enemy that can fly, behind a Wind Wall, with Stoneskin, and Regeneration...and summon a horde of animals (including some that can shoot touch ranged attacks at the PCs) and lob touch fire grenades at them (or just take a nap if they want to and do it again tomorrow after that obstacle course of death is laid out).  There is no reason to ever engage the PC's only strength; melee.

That...is narrative control.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> [MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION]
> I don't use CRs at all, but I do find this idea interesting, and despite having the original TB, I haven't check out the Teratologue.




I'd recommend it on that alone; it was shocking just how many powerful monsters had a spine CR that was far below their full CR. A balor, for instance, is a CR 20 creature with a spine CR of 11 - so if it's not using its many spell-like abilities to their fullest effect, and instead just charging in to melee combat, then it's not going to be much of a challenge for your level 20 party.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> I would really be curious how these 3 martial, melee characters with no legitimate vertical axis mobility are going to deal with a giant field of no-save Spike Stones




If you want to make the case that area movement impairment spells (Web, spike stones, wall of thorns mainly) are overpowered, yeah, point conceded. Flight is somewhat different, as it is something players recognize and prepare for, but yes that can also be overpowered. These spells (like most of 3E) were designed with a dungeon environment in mind, where there simply is not enough space to use them well. On the other hand, considering the catastrophic consequences of having a melee character come into contact with a spellcaster, something along these lines is needed. 

Perhaps what you are extolling here is the benefits of surprise, ambush, selecting your battlefield, and preparation. In the context of no prep time, a straight initiative roll and a 20 ft. distance between opponents (bash in the door style play), the caster is so dead. And if you reverse the situation above; the team has infiltrated the druid's sanctum when he returns to rest and jumps him as he steps out of his plant door - smack, no contest at all. Martial characters can also ambush.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 26, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My understanding of 3E maths is that making saving throws is quite hard.
> 
> Eg at 1st level a fighter's Will save might be +1 at best, I would have thought (WIS of 12 or 13) whereas the DC against a Charm Person spell would be 10+1 (for level) +3 or 4 (for a 16 or 18 INT) = 14 or 15. So around a 1/3 chance to save. And the DC will scale more quickly than the save bonus.




So let's reverse this - the L1 wizard with the right spell to target the fighter (poor will save and least likely to have a significant stat bonus) still has a 1/3 chance of his most powerful ability failing.  How much higher should that chance of failure be?  Fighters an wizards are both PC's.  If saves are so easy that spellcasting is either an exercise in frustration waiting to finally luck out and have a target fail a save, or an exercise in seeking out spells that will have an impact if the save succeeds, why play a spellcaster at all?



pemerton said:


> No. It assumes that _sometimes_ the players (and their PCs) can control the pace. The more that "sometimes" trends towards "often", the stronger this use of Teleport becomes.




And the question is why "sometimes" trends to "often or always".  "Sometimes" I'd like a specific PC to absolutely shine.  But everyone gets their "sometimes", so Teleport as the be all and end all does not work.  And where is the adventure planning/design in this picture?  Even back in 1e, if I ran a scenario where there would be very few (maybe 1 or 2) encounters in a day, rather than several, each single encounter was more powerful to compensate for the reduced need to husband resources for later encounters/deal with depleted resources from earlier encounters.

And at L15, I can transport myself, three fellow party members and the Druid's Large animal companion.  Do we leave the companion behind from L9 to 14?  What if we need to take an NPC (we're escorting a diplomat, or charged with bringing back a prisoner to face the judgment of the Great Kingdom)?  "One additional medium or smaller creature" tells me that the Wizard's familiar is a separate creature, but Share Spell takes care of that as long as it's the caster's familiar (and it's within 5').

If "teleport in; one battle; teleport out" is such an obvious and powerful tactic, then the world should be developing strategies to deal with it, just like the world developed strategies to deal with better steel, cavalry, gunpowder, firearms, tanks, etc.  Those cultures that could not keep up with this arms race became marginalized - so sure, perhaps there are tribes of gblins and orcs with no magical skills or knowledge, but they cant be much of a threat, as they cannot compete with those races who have mastered that magic.  They either develop magic of their own, they develop tactics for dealing with magic, or their threat should already be reduced or eliminated by the prevelance of competitor, even enemy, species that have magic.



pemerton said:


> London to Prague is less than 650 miles, from London to Warsaw less than 900. That covers your basic pseudo-European campaign.




You'll note that my examples also presumed you could have a "very familiar" haven in range for most situations.  Still a 3% failure chance, albeit with limited consequences.  And still accessible by enemy teleportation.



pemerton said:


> In the last campaign that featured PCs doing this, the PCs lived in the Imperial palace, working as servitors/advisors to the Great Kingdom. That is a hard safe haven to ambush!




How nice for the PC's to dwell in the only place in all the world where repeatedly teleporting in and out is not the key to victory!  Seems like the deck has been nicely stacked in favour of such tactics being successful.  Again, if you structure the game to eliminate all the weaknesses of a specific tactic, it hardly seems unreasonable to expect that such a tactic becomes powerful.  Now, if one really wants to frustrate the tactic, start builing replicas of the Imperial Palace, stock them with ambushers and wait for that 1% "similar area" - but this implies the PC's are a serious threat to an opponent with substantial resources.  Seems like an opponent that might also have a pretty secure safe haven where 'port in/'port out is no more viable than it is for the Imperial Palace.



pemerton said:


> It may be that, within the fiction, the PCs progress slower. But in my experience players care about the rate of progression in the real world, not in the fiction.




Again, comes down to the reaction of the enemy.  They just sit there, waiting for the next raid to take out a few more of them, rather than taking any steps to better defend themselves from these raiders, or flee the area.  Sounds like a bunch of creatures whose sole purpose in existence is to provide easy pickings for the PC's.  Perhaps they should send out a call for brave adventurers to defend them from the depredations of these mysterious and undefeatable raiders - that normally works, doesn't it?

Let's put the shoe on the other foot.  If a small cadre of raiders Teleport to the PC's location, attack, then withraw by teleportation on Monday, then reappear with the same tactic on Tuesday, will the PC's have a plan for Wednesday, or will they just sit there bemoaning their inevitable defeat from these powerful marauders?  The PC's are all L8, so they can't fight back with the same tactic, just to make it a bit tougher (or their enemy is holed up in the Imperial Palace of the Opposing Great Kingdom).

Or, if everyone is hapy, keep using the "fish in a barrell" enemies and the PC's get their power trip.  If everyone is enjoying the game, then it's a good game for everyone.  If they are not, then something in the game needs to change, right?  At the extreme, that ma be removal of Teleport spells in their entirety.  In my view, enforcing the rules of the teleport spells, and playing the enemy with a less defeatist attitude, would help a lot.  

Oddly, the Teleport spell provides no indication of what happens if your desired location is out of range.  I wonder if that just fails, or becomes a false destination (OUCH!)


----------



## N'raac (Jun 26, 2013)

There are some comments on skills way, way upthread, suggesting that since the fighter will just dump INT and CHA, skills aren't going to help him have a narrative impact.  May I suggest that, by dumping CHA and INT, the fighter has CHOSEN to minimize his ability to impact the narrative?  You wanted stats that were entirely combat-focused, and abilities that were entirely combat-focused, and now you complain about having limited abilities out of combat.  I don't put much stock in Wizards and Sorcerers who complain that their melee prowess is pretty limited, and HTH with those daggers and staves doesnt compete effectively against the Fighter.

"Being good at everything" is an MAD choice, and is likely to mean you won't be "the best" at anything.  Chosing to have a bunch of 8's an a few extremely high stats, rather than a spread of moderate stats, is just that - a CHOICE.  Just ike a wizard who dumped STR has CHOSEN to have a tough time hauling around rations, water and a spellbook, and should not be complaining when his encumbrance works against him.  [Bag of Holding?  Portable Hole?  So much for Rope Trick!]


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Oddly, the Teleport spell provides no indication of what happens if your desired location is out of range.  I wonder if that just fails, or becomes a false destination (OUCH!)




I'd be inclined to say it becomes a false destination - there is no location like that in range of the spell. otherwise there'd never be any false destinations - all possible locations exist _somewhere_ if we assume an infinite universe of infinite variety. Eh, that creates some nasty confusion for the unlimited range Greater Teleport - did you arrive at your target, or at any of the infinite other identical places across the infinite universe? Lets not go there. Still, even discounting an infinite universe, it would seem that a location out of range has to be out of mind as far as the spell is considered, and so is a false destination.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 26, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Again, comes down to the reaction of the enemy.  They just sit there, waiting for the next raid to take out a few more of them, rather than taking any steps to better defend themselves from these raiders, or flee the area.  Sounds like a bunch of creatures whose sole purpose in existence is to provide easy pickings for the PC's.  Perhaps they should send out a call for brave adventurers to defend them from the depredations of these mysterious and undefeatable raiders - that normally works, doesn't it?




One of my favorite blogs talks about this (albeit in the broader context of the 15-minute adventuring day), and pretty much comes to the same conclusion. If the PCs have these tactics, odds are that they aren't new tactics, and so NPCs who are of a comparable level to the PCs should have access to these tactics (and their countermeasures) as well.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> I would really be curious how these 3 martial, melee characters with no legitimate vertical axis mobility are going to deal with a giant field of no-save Spike Stones (1/2 move, d8 damage/5 feet moved in a giant AoE field around them)



Well, the monk would run out of the field and his DR would prevent any damage, and he has enough strength to carry the ranger with him without encumbrance (and does). His speed, even halved, would get them out of even a large area within a round or two.

Also, Dimension Door is vertical axis mobility. It's not the same as having a spellcaster's versatility, but that one-trick pony character has a hell of a trick. And, the last time I attacked them from up high in a forest, the monk jumped to the top of a (tall) tree in a couple of rounds. Height is not a huge advantage here.



> Large/Huge (uncrittable and non-sneakable) Air Elementals that can pick them up and drop them to the ground for massive damage threshold,



They would simply laugh them off as an air elemental (or any summoned creature) has little chance of beating their saving throws/AC. Also, trying to drop a character with slow fall or dimension door/blinking in a forest is kind of pointless. Also, if said elemental had the melee characters in its whirlwind, it would not last more than a couple of rounds, even with its impressive (for a summoned creature) AC and DR.



> (level 10 characters shouldn't have much more than a 12 as their best save - maybe 14 with feat investment - and more likely a 10ish)



I covered this elsewhere, but their saves range from +10 to +20, mostly in the middle of that range. Without any feats, IIRC.



> against an enemy that can fly, behind a Wind Wall, with Stoneskin, and Regeneration...and summon a horde of animals (including some that can shoot touch ranged attacks at the PCs) and lob touch fire grenades at them (or just take a nap if they want to and do it again tomorrow after that obstacle course of death is laid out).



Frankly, even if I'd had the time to set up that kind of stuff, the PCs would have just left.



> There is no reason to ever engage the PC's only strength; melee.



You're right about that.



> That...is narrative control.



That...is a lot of stuff that wouldn't have worked anyway.

The NPC in question was not aware in advance the PCs were coming and did not have ideal time to prepare (nor did the PCs know about him). However, the best realistic outcome for him was a stalemate/escape. I'm not aware of any tactics that would likely have disabled or killed the PCs; maybe inconvenienced them at best. And there was (relatively unmentioned in this dialogue) a psychic NPC for whom range is not a concern who would have flayed the druid alive had the druid not dealt with him first. This is just an example, and everyone's table is different, and there are a few houserules in play here that somewhat increased the PCs' durability and reduced the druid's flexibility. But I'm legitimately trying to build a CoDzilla here, and I'm the DM, and it still doesn't work. Which suggests to me that magic is rather overrated.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 26, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> Martials (not just fighters) do not have tools that allow them to change or take control of the narrative of the game.




I'm not sure you're right here. Or rather, let me draw the distinction between the adventure and the campaign. Martials can have considerable social powers. Consider Galahad. As a peasant, he'd get shooed away. As a squire, he would be treated courteously. As Sir Galahad, he and his entourage would be given hospitality, and, by the way, could he please deal with this little problem... As Sir Galahad, Knight of the Round Table, he could muster the armies of the realm.  




> 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.




This I like, but D&D is really mainly a squad-based game and that sort of opportunity is going to be rare, so more properly relegated to a Prestige Class, whereas spellcasters alter the narrative almost by design.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm also a believer in medium saves. There are way too many poor saves and not enough granularity.




The 3E base save system is rubbish. I suggest using the 3E epic save system - level or HD / 2 round down plus +2 Class Bonus where a Class or Prestige Class grants a Good save. It's simple and works a treat. No one has poor saves, and no one gets unbeatable saves.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

Quartz said:


> The 3E base save system is rubbish. I suggest using the 3E epic save system - level or HD / 2 round down plus +2 Class Bonus where a Class or Prestige Class grants a Good save. It's simple and works a treat. No one has poor saves, and no one gets unbeatable saves.



I don't think that particular approach has enough granularity for my tastes, but certainly, 3e's basic math is not unimpeachable.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 26, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Hm, good point you make here. What I meant to say about the three pillars is that the word "narrative" in this context is so badly defined that it is actually useless. We spent pages on this thread just trying to find a definition, and the best we came up with was "non-combat". Compared to that, the three pillars do seem like an improvement - and the pillars being three (not just combat/noncombat) implies there might be more, so there is room for considerations like "investigation". Still, we can't make the pillars too many, or they outweigh combat - a lot of table time is spent on combat, and thus combat abilities matter alot.
> 
> But as you point out, there is another possible meaning of "narrative powers", and that is what you call scene framing. Like the infiltration power mentioned upthread, which is really a subplot resolved in an abstract manner. And some spells fall into that category, but DnD mainly shies away from such powers, especially for martial characters. DnD has traditionally been much too stimulationist to include off-stage events as powers. Perhaps those who deride this discussion and say martial characters should use what abilities they have instead of complaining have a point here - *if you want to get the effect of as spell through hard work and skill, you should play that out and not ask the rules to give it to you for free.* At the same time, if there are two possible ways to do something - one involving an hour or more of difficult role-play, the other involving a simple spell, most parties will take the spell, letting the spellcaster outshine the rouge. In 4E when many of these powers were made into lengthy rituals, some of my players complained that the magic got pre-empted by cruder but faster mundane solutions - a complete turnaround from earlier editions. Balance is so hard to achieve.
> 
> So, where does this lead us? Well, primarily it lets us refine our language, breaking up the fuzzy term "narrative" into different sub-meanings that are more useful and comprehensible, such as the "three pillars" and "scene framing" - tough I still think we need a better term for the later. We need to develop the concepts and tools before we can come to grips with the problem itself.




First let me say I think this is a really good post that touches on an important issue surrounding those pushing for mundane characters to have more/a different type of narrative control... 

Emphasis mine... I think this is a more important part of the discussion than its been given credit for so far. Now first let me say that in all honesty, I have a slight distaste for these auto-change "powers" that would allow mundane characters to just make things happen (not in general but in D&D), and I wasn't sure why until you made this post. I think it's because essentially it feels like all you're doing is creating a new type of spellcaster and then claiming he's not using magic. now in many games (like Fate, MHR, Heroquest) there is little to no mechanical difference between spellcasting and climbing a wall and for those games I have no problem with a power like the above because mundane and magical interactions work the same (mechanically) in those games. However, In (pre-4e) D&D, that's not true... magic has it's own set of rules and limitations when interacting with the gameworld. While interaction with the gameworld on a mundane level has, for the most part, it's own seperate set of mechanics and limitations... and I honestly think some/many/a majority of D&D players like it this way. I personally don't want to play a fighter or rogue that uses "spells" but slaps a different coat of paint over them. and claims they aren't magic. 

I also think that powers like these kind of defeat the purpose and fun of playing a mundane character vs. a spellcaster in the game. If I wanted to cast a spell and make something happen I would have chosen one of the numerous spellcasting classes. The type of martial/mundane character I like playing lives by his wits, skills, physical prowess and luck. More robust skills, with more varied options and even extraordinary feats attached to them at certain levels I can get behind for a mundane character... even a luck point system or specialized feats only they can pick that enhance mental and physical abilities... but meta-game mechanics that let me change reality at a whim, that's a spell in my mind and I'm not sure I want martial characters to become just another spellcaster if there are other options.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I'm not sure I want martial characters to become just another spellcaster *if there are other options*.




Which is what this thread is all about. The problem is just that, finding those other options - and what options are not palatable to us and to the general D&D audience. 

Thanks for a nice post.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 26, 2013)

There is no way that a hard, scene-reframing narrative authority resource system (for mundanes or for all characters) will be part of the core/basic 5e experience. No way, no how. That is abundantly clear. 0 chance. ** It will be a module (if included at all).

We're over 1.5 years into this effort now. Every time I see a post denouncing somethings inclusion that is clearly modular, I just blink in disbelief. If this game is supposed to be a (a) "modular, big tent, unity edition," then the most fundamental premise is that there will be options in the game that you will not use and that you can happily ignore. The idea that (b) "anti-<n>" lobbies should be vetting/quality-controlling "pro-<n>" modules, and then disallowing them based on their "anti-<n>" sensibilities, is anathema to the alleged design ethos of a modular, unity edition. If anyone's sense is that the 5e (a) design ethos is compatible with this (b) design approach and that the two are not mutually exclusive, I would love to hear that reasoning. 

People clarify statements all the time on here with "play what you like" or "YMMV" (which is basically implicit). Whether someone's opinion is that something should be disallowed entirely (eg no modules allowing for it) or "this shouldn't be core/basic" is not implicit. Therefore, it would be nice if these statements were clarified with such a caveat. Because taking the time to write a post disparaging the potential inclusion of something that will clearly be modular (of which won't affect your gameplay) implies that you feel that "modular, big tent, unity edition" is boiler plate bunk. I mean, you can do it. Have at it. But what do you expect the takeaway to be from the readership?

** However, given that, Background Traits seem to be pretty incoherent with that expectation so I would assume that they will not be core/basic.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 26, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I personally don't want to play a fighter or rogue that uses "spells" but slaps a different coat of paint over them. and claims they aren't magic.




I personally agree with this, though I suspect that there's a sizeable contingent of players who are happy with just such an action. It's worth noting that, for this, the difference between refluffing and reskinning becomes an issue depending on how magic is treated by the game rules.



> _I also think that powers like these kind of defeat the purpose and fun of playing a mundane character vs. a spellcaster in the game. If I wanted to cast a spell and make something happen I would have chosen one of the numerous spellcasting classes. The type of martial/mundane character I like playing lives by his wits, skills, physical prowess and luck. More robust skills, with more varied options and even extraordinary feats attached to them at certain levels I can get behind for a mundane character... even a luck point system or specialized feats only they can pick that enhance mental and physical abilities... but meta-game mechanics that let me change reality at a whim, that's a spell in my mind and I'm not sure I want martial characters to become just another spellcaster if there are other options._




Again, I agree here, but I suspect that there's only so far that the rules can go in this particular area. One such mechanism for this is a universal mechanic that can be implemented for whatever a player wants to attempt (e.g. something like "action points" that can be evoked every so often for a wide variety of effects), though those might be too homogenous (in helping to distinguish each class in-and-of themselves, if not in each specific use) to really drive home the differences in class, not to mention issues of dissociation (again, as a whole, not for each use - why can't you pull off incredible non-magical stunt X after your action points have run out?).

Having said that, if we accept that some classes will have options that are not only different in various narrative circumstances, but that some will have a greater breadth of options (even without getting into issues of how effective those options are), that's going to lead to "scene imbalance" between classes that can only be corrected by utilizing multiple play-styles in the course of the game fairly regularly. Even blanket statements like "combat is more central than other narratives" are fairly broad generalizations that don't help very much. Given that, at some point it's going to be up to the GM, and not the rules, to make sure that the characters are in a position to exercise their options in different narrative areas with some degree of regularity (though not predictability).


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> There is no way that a hard, scene-reframing narrative authority resource system (for mundanes or for all characters) will be part of the core/basic 5e experience. No way, no how. That is abundantly clear. 0 chance. ** It will be a module (if included at all).




Seems likely that you are right. Not even sure if anyone wants that to be a part of that to be part of the basic Next experience. These are not really issues for new players, and so need be in Next core. Franky I'd be surprised if it even became an official module. Perhaps something like Pazio's new Advanced Campaign Guide far down the road?

But this is not a Next thread, it is a general opinion gathering/brainstorming thread for all of DnD and perhaps other systems as well. If nothing else, the energetic participation it seems to indicate it is an issue worth discussing.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, the monk would run out of the field and his DR would prevent any damage, and he has enough strength to carry the ranger with him without encumbrance (and does). His speed, even halved, would get them out of even a large area within a round or two.




That's why Wall of Thorns is the better spell.  Even with a 30 STR you need to roll a 20 to move 10'; the druid can conjure eleven 10' cubes of thorns.  The damage they take isn't a big factor (though Dex and dodge bonuses don't count against it), but I don't see how they can get out - not without magic (freedom of movement or dimension door).  

While they're in the wall you can deal with the magic-using characters (the blink dog rogue and the psion).  You should be able to do that with spontaneous castings of summon spells (the huge air elemental who can keep up with the rogue's mobility) and your animal companion.  (Though you should probably be able to kill the rogue yourself as a dire lion.)

Killing the guys in the wall of thorns will be difficult if you don't have the right spells prepared, but since it'll take them a long time to get out, you can whittle away their HP.  If they aren't dead by then, they'll be a lot weaker.



Ahnehnois said:


> They would simply laugh them off as an air elemental (or any summoned creature) has little chance of beating their saving throws/AC.




+19 has little chance of beating their AC?



Ahnehnois said:


> But I'm legitimately trying to build a CoDzilla here, and I'm the DM, and it still doesn't work. Which suggests to me that magic is rather overrated.




One spell - not even your highest level spell - can seriously screw up the party, and only the magic-using characters can do anything about it.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 26, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Again, I agree here, but I suspect that there's only so far that the rules can go in this particular area. One such mechanism for this is a universal mechanic that can be implemented for whatever a player wants to attempt (e.g. something like "action points" that can be evoked every so often for a wide variety of effects), though those might be too homogenous (in helping to distinguish each class in-and-of themselves, if not in each specific use) to really drive home the differences in class, not to mention issues of dissociation (again, as a whole, not for each use - why can't you pull off incredible non-magical stunt X after your action points have run out?).




Well my ideas on this would be to first balance out the skill allocation in D&D. I honestly believe that mundanes should have more skills than casters. With that done I'd like to see WotC explore something akin to Skill Tricks from 3.5. Where upon attaining a particular level in a skill would allow you to select a number of these tricks (that become progressively more powerful or broad in their capability) that then allow you to broaden and increase the narrative changing capabilites of said skills. I think the rules in 3.5 are a good start but they weren't fleshed out enough and didn't touch on the full range of skills. These skill tricks would give mundane characters the choice of either deepening their skills through extra bonuses (they become more and more exceptional at the said skill) or broadening (they are able to influence more though they are not necessarily getting better) their capabilities. As a quick and dirty example... using stealth/move silently...

Perhaps a depening skill trick would allow a rogue to roll twice and take the better of two rolls on his stealth/move silently check. While a broadening skill trick would allow the rogue's party to use his stealth/move silently score (as opposed to their own) as long as they stay within 10 feet of him. While this example isn't perfect I think a system along these lines could drastically even out the mundane/magic divide without everyone being a spellcaster.

EDIT: Another option I've thought about, which I basically stole from Earthdawn is allowing martial characters to "craft" their own magic items by performing legendary deeds with items and that deed empowering said item.  While they would be limited in the type of items they could make, it would be the items that are most used by their class.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 26, 2013)

In granting narrative options, meaning the ability to affect the story through player/character actions I think there are three approaches to "I do X to the Y"

*1*.The action has a target number that the player needs to overcome for character success. This is pretty standard to the game with to hit rolls, skill checks etc, but can easily be adopted into narrative "director" stance by the player using narration to have the right tool available, contacts, a key that they claim they found etc ... (very Tas from Dragonlance). 

This is weak narrative control as the control is probability based. 

*2*. The player has a fixed resource that they exchange for the ability to use the narrative "director" stance. Most commonly in D&D this use of spells or extraordinary abilities, but was used a common practice in 4e. In this definition "slots" are fixed resource that the player exchanges for a pre-defined character narrative success; though, often there may be a component of 1. included, but there is also often a lesser success component; ie "on miss"

A variation of "fixed resource" is "variable resource". This is more commonly used in more narrative games (eg Fate) where the player has chips/points to trade in for "triggering" loosely defined powers/abilities/aspects that the player "interprets" within the narrative context. These are often double edged abilities and the player can re-fresh their resources by accepting story elements that put the character at a disadvantage.

Both of these are moderate narrative control

*3*. The player simply alters the story reality through narration and belongs to storytelling based games.

This is strong narrative control.

In D&D, space should be created for a combination of* 1.* and* 2.* and limited (maybe for creating a quest or other great event, *3.* (normally "wish" domain)). Most likely, *1.* as only spell classes have slots for exchange, outside of 4e


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> That's why Wall of Thorns is the better spell.



Can't say I was aware that Wall of Thorns was that powerful as written. However, it seems to be that it is essentially a two-dimensional spell, and that an enterprising character could climb/jump up the wall and jump into the trees overhead, or perhaps just scramble over top (the text is not clear on this aspect of the wall, but it seems like something these players would have tried). Also, the ranger has woodland stride (a nonmagical low-level ability), which effectively negates the spell, and is strong enough to carry other characters (which is a cheesy but legit RAW way of getting them out of the area). Again, one or two rounds of running. The caster spent a round creating it in the first place to barely accomplish anything.



> You should be able to do that with spontaneous castings of summon spells



We're going awfully far into the details of how I run my particular campaign (as opposed to a generic statement about the game as a whole), but I do not allow my druids spontaneous summoning (and I use the spontaneous casting variant). My druids generally don't do summoning; they could, but those spells are not useful often enough to justify taking if you don't get them for free. And in this case, that full round spent summoning would have been a very dangerous round for the caster, and he would have run the risk of being disrupted.



> +19 has little chance of beating their AC?



They're all around low 30's I think, but that's before all that fighting defensively/combat expertise stuff they do and my TB combat reactions. They're 10th level characters, and all of the sort that value AC. And those air elementals target ref saves, which are strong among the light warrior types.



> One spell - not even your highest level spell - can seriously screw up the party, and only the magic-using characters can do anything about it.



A few people have taken on this exercise of trying to optimize this scenario, and I'm not convinced that any of you would have done any better if you were controlling my NPC, knew what I knew, and had the time that I had (in-game). We're still solidly in two birds in a bush territory. You can try all these seemingly powerful things, but if they don't work, you run out of options fast.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 26, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Can't say I was aware that Wall of Thorns was that powerful as written. However, it seems to be that it is essentially a two-dimensional spell, and that an enterprising character could climb/jump up the wall and jump into the trees overhead, or perhaps just scramble over top (the text is not clear on this aspect of the wall, but it seems like something these players would have tried).




Good call, I wasn't aware that there were trees.



Ahnehnois said:


> Also, the ranger has woodland stride (a nonmagical low-level ability), which effectively negates the spell, and is strong enough to carry other characters (which is a cheesy but legit RAW way of getting them out of the area). Again, one or two rounds of running. The caster spent a round creating it in the first place to barely accomplish anything.




Nice catch.  Woodland stride doesn't work on magic, but wall of thorns has its own condition.  It's kinda vague but I'd go with letting it work.



Ahnehnois said:


> We're going awfully far into the details of how I run my particular campaign (as opposed to a generic statement about the game as a whole), but I do not allow my druids spontaneous summoning (and I use the spontaneous casting variant).




That does impact their flexibility quite a bit.



Ahnehnois said:


> They're all around low 30's I think, but that's before all that fighting defensively/combat expertise stuff they do and my TB combat reactions. They're 10th level characters, and all of the sort that value AC.




Ouch, that's pretty high for 10th level.

If I had been running the game I would have dropped the wall of thorns (even if I knew as DM that the ranger could slip out and the rogue could teleport away), figuring that even if they are able to get out, I can summon some dudes to help me out while they're struggling.  Without summon spells I don't know what I would have done.  Maybe a baleful polymorph on the rogue and then flight, getting back at them later on (using scry and speak with plants/animals to track their movements).

The forest can be pretty creepy when every animal you see might be a wildshaped druid ready to turn you into a frog!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 26, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> Good call, I wasn't aware that there were trees.



Oddly enough, the trees are a disadvantage for the druid (who does tend to be around them a lot).



> That does impact their flexibility quite a bit.



One of the legitimate problems with the core rules is the infinite spell list of divine casters. I contend that limiting that (using a published variant as a basis) is a simple change but one that significantly balances the game and prevents those characters from optimizing to particular situations on a daily basis (and, in some examples people might give, exerting too much influence).



> Ouch, that's pretty high for 10th level.



I run high-powered campaigns with high ability scores and lots of magic items (which does tend to shift the balance slightly towards noncasters because they have more MAD and more good uses for money). Also, these are high-AC characters (monk, rogue, ranger). A 10th level wizard probably doesn't have that AC.



> Maybe a baleful polymorph on the rogue and then flight, getting back at them later on (using scry and speak with plants/animals to track their movements).



This is what I should have done. I did have Transport via Plants, but I didn't use it fast enough. Me (and the character, in game) clearly underestimated the threat level.



> The forest can be pretty creepy when every animal you see might be a wildshaped druid ready to turn you into a frog!



I've definitely got that vibe going.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2013)

N'raac said:


> There are some comments on skills way, way upthread, suggesting that since the fighter will just dump INT and CHA, skills aren't going to help him have a narrative impact.  May I suggest that, by dumping CHA and INT, the fighter has CHOSEN to minimize his ability to impact the narrative?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Just ike a wizard who dumped STR has CHOSEN to have a tough time hauling around rations, water and a spellbook, and should not be complaining when his encumbrance works against him.



Maybe it's just me, but I see a huge difference between "dumping" INT and CHA to ensure you have sufficient STR, CON and DEX to do you core job as a fighter, and "dumping" STR as an MU and then relying on your friends to carry you rations and water. Even with STR 8 you can carry 26 lb without trouble - that's a couple of spellbooks without any trouble.



N'raac said:


> If "teleport in; one battle; teleport out" is such an obvious and powerful tactic, then the world should be developing strategies to deal with it, just like the world developed strategies to deal with better steel, cavalry, gunpowder, firearms, tanks, etc.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Alzrius said:


> One of my favorite blogs talks about this (albeit in the broader context of the 15-minute adventuring day), and pretty much comes to the same conclusion. If the PCs have these tactics, odds are that they aren't new tactics, and so NPCs who are of a comparable level to the PCs should have access to these tactics (and their countermeasures) as well.



There are a lot of assumptions here about playstyle, campaign design etc. Nothing wrong with those campaigns, playstyles etc for those who enjoy them, but the fact that there are some approaches to the game in which teleport is not a strong strategy doesn't ential that other approaches are inherently flawed.

First, on counter-strategies (and NPCs using the same tactics, etc): this assumes a campaign world in which the PCs are not distinctive in capabilities or stature, but just one of many high level actors. That might work for Forgotten Realms (or similar worlds); it doesn't work very well for Greyhawk (or similar worlds). Greyhawk is not chock-full of arbitrary numbers of high level characters, and high-level PCs (ie 10+) can be expected to be among the most powerful actors in the world. Thus, they _will_ live in some of the strongest towers or fotresses in the world (imperial palaces, Drawmij's underwater hideout, etc), whether as allies of other powerful beings or having defeated them and taken over their houses.

Second, on the enemy "just sitting around waiting": if the game is ToH style, or Maure Castle style - ie a fairly traditional scenario in which the main goal is exploration of an ancient and largely uninhabited fortresss/dungeon/etc, then the "enemy" - the traps, golems etc _will_ just be sitting around waiting, and the casters will be able to nova without cost.

Third, in circumstances where NPCs _do_ use retaliatory scry-and-fry, how does that make the game better? All it does is mean that the PCs suffer the full brunt of NPC caster nova-ing. In my experience it's a good recipe for TPK. Not really conducive to the ongoing campaign, I've found.



sheadunne said:


> I like this. Rather than think about it in terms of moving the classes into other space where they've been traditionally weak, move the space to the them, where they aren't. Interesting.



Thanks.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> Woodland stride doesn't work on magic, but wall of thorns has its own condition.  It's kinda vague but I'd go with letting it work.



Woodland stride says "thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that are enchanted or magically manipulated to impede motion still affect [the ranger]."

Wall of Thorns is Conjuration (Creation) and is not affected by spell resistance. Does it radiate magic to a Detect Magic spell or not? The rules for Creation spells say:

A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.​
Wall of Thorns is D:10 min./level (D). Hence it is "held together by magic", and presumably would radiate magic to a Detect Magic spell. It is able to be dispelled. I would have thought that it counts as "thorns, briars, [or] overgrown areas that are enchanted or magically manipulated to impede motion."

(I must confess this sort of stuff is one reason why I don't really enjoy 3E and it's offshoots.)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 27, 2013)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
As [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] alluded to, Wall of Thorns has an explicit exception written into the spell:
"Creatures with the ability to pass through overgrown areas unhindered can pass through a wall of thorns at normal speed without taking damage."

As to your last point, I'm not wild about wading through some of this minutiae either.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2013)

pemerton said:


> There are a lot of assumptions here about playstyle, campaign design etc. Nothing wrong with those campaigns, playstyles etc for those who enjoy them, but the fact that there are some approaches to the game in which teleport is not a strong strategy doesn't ential that other approaches are inherently flawed.




You're right that those games aren't "inherently flawed" in terms of any qualitative value judgment.

However, when you consciously and knowingly pick a style of play that skews with some element of balance - such as by presuming a campaign world where the PCs have abilities and tactics that are unique (or extremely rare), or otherwise have powers and abilities that most NPCs won't know about or be able to defend against - and then find that (some of the) PCs are overly powerful, to the point where they're not threatened by your encounters and/or are overshadowing the other PCs...then there is an inherent flaw. If you create a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's hard for others to be sympathetic when it becomes fulfilled.



> _First, on counter-strategies (and NPCs using the same tactics, etc): this assumes a campaign world in which the PCs are not distinctive in capabilities or stature, but just one of many high level actors. That might work for Forgotten Realms (or similar worlds); it doesn't work very well for Greyhawk (or similar worlds). Greyhawk is not chock-full of arbitrary numbers of high level characters, and high-level PCs (ie 10+) can be expected to be among the most powerful actors in the world._




No. I have to protest this; Greyhawk is plenty full of high-level villains, it just doesn't keep shining a spotlight on them the way the Forgotten Realms does.

Iuz. Iggwilv. Eli Tomorast. Eclavdra. Warduke. Dragotha. Rary of Ket. Diraq Malcinex, the Heart of Vecna. Thessalar. Tuerny the Merciless. Lord Robilar. The Fiend-Sage of Rel Astra. St. Kargoth the Betrayer. These are just off the top of my head, and that's without even getting into other power groups like the Horned Society, the Scarlet Brotherhood, and the Boneheart/Boneshadow, all of which have operatives ranging from low levels to high. 

And that's without even factoring in the good (and neutral) guys.

I'm sorry, but only someone who doesn't know Greyhawk very well would say that it has a paucity of high-level characters.



> _Thus, they will live in some of the strongest towers or fotresses in the world (imperial palaces, Drawmij's underwater hideout, etc), whether as allies of other powerful beings or having defeated them and taken over their houses._




See above; that's not a given.



> _Second, on the enemy "just sitting around waiting": if the game is ToH style, or Maure Castle style - ie a fairly traditional scenario in which the main goal is exploration of an ancient and largely uninhabited fortresss/dungeon/etc, then the "enemy" - the traps, golems etc will just be sitting around waiting, and the casters will be able to nova without cost._




Yes, and that's fine in some circumstances. No one is suggesting that _all_ enemies undertake preemptive defenses or after-the-fact retaliation; sometimes you will find enemies that are simply unprepared, are unintelligent, are unable to respond, or are simply made of environmental challenges. But these are the exceptions (which allow the spellcasters their chance to shine), rather than the rule.

Again, you can elect to make such encounters the norm if you want, eschewing any enemies that have a chance to anticipate and adapt to tactics, let alone retaliate, but if you do so it's somewhat disingenuous to complain that your spellcasters keep stealing the spotlight.



> _Third, in circumstances where NPCs do use retaliatory scry-and-fry, how does that make the game better? All it does is mean that the PCs suffer the full brunt of NPC caster nova-ing. In my experience it's a good recipe for TPK. Not really conducive to the ongoing campaign, I've found._




Leaving aside your own previous statement about no particular play-style having inherent flaws, this is fun because it's presumed that the PCs will anticipate this, and make their own adjustments accordingly when in a defensive position (e.g. when camping for the evening). That means they'll have to not only set aside resources beforehand, but also adjust their strategies to try and pursue tactics that discourage this sort of retaliation in the first place...and just like that, people are strategically planning in-character.

Not to mention, enemy casters can pretty well be expected to nova in your typical kick-in-the-door session of play - they have invaders running about the place, intent on killing everyone, so why would they hold back anyway? Ironically, they'll be more inclined not to nova if they think that they can escape (or bargain, or surrender and be treated humanely, etc.), so that they can keep some resources in reserve and seize an opportunity that will arrive later, since they'll be alive later to seize it. Hence, this style of play can help to avoid a TPK.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Greyhawk is plenty full of high-level villains, it just doesn't keep shining a spotlight on them the way the Forgotten Realms does.
> 
> Iuz. Iggwilv. Eli Tomorast. Eclavdra. Warduke. Dragotha. Rary of Ket. Diraq Malcinex, the Heart of Vecna. Thessalar. Tuerny the Merciless. Lord Robilar. The Fiend-Sage of Rel Astra. St. Kargoth the Betrayer. These are just off the top of my head, and that's without even getting into other power groups like the Horned Society, the Scarlet Brotherhood, and the Boneheart/Boneshadow, all of which have operatives ranging from low levels to high.
> 
> ...



I know Greyhawk very well - I GMed it intermittently from the mid-80s and consistently from 1990 to 1997.

In the mid-80s boxed set, there are two soft-bound books. The thinner one (I can't remember now how it is labelled) sets out the class and levels of the rules of the various lands of Greyhawk. The highest level is the 18th level ruler of Stonefist (the Archcleric of Veluna may be at a similar level, I think). Many of the other rulers are between 10th and 14th level.

The average level of Circle of Eight members is in the upper teens.

This is a _total_ of perhaps some dozens of NPCs in this level range. On the assumption that most of them are not the enemies of the PCs, there are simply not that many scry-and-fry teleporting enemies around.

I guess one might run a campaign in which the PCs first face off against the Horned Society (before Iuz did?), then Iuz and his hangers on, then Iggwilv and Tuerny, then Vecna. But that's only one of many possible GH campaigns. (Also, Eclavdra presumably has trouble teleporting to the PCs for the same reason they have trouble teleporting out of the Vault of the Drow.)



Alzrius said:


> Yes, and that's fine in some circumstances. No one is suggesting that _all_ enemies undertake preemptive defenses or after-the-fact retaliation; sometimes you will find enemies that are simply unprepared, are unintelligent, are unable to respond, or are simply made of environmental challenges. But these are the exceptions (which allow the spellcasters their chance to shine), rather than the rule.
> 
> Again, you can elect to make such encounters the norm if you want, eschewing any enemies that have a chance to anticipate and adapt to tactics, let alone retaliate, but if you do so it's somewhat disingenuous to complain that your spellcasters keep stealing the spotlight.



People on these boards keep accusing me of being disingenuous. I wonder if they're all familiar with the definition of that word: "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity" (from the Random House dictionary via dictionary.reference.com).

What makes you think I'm being insincere? Not everyone whose experiences and opinions differ from yours is a liar (likewise I don't suppose that you're lying about your experiences and opinions just because they differe from mine).

The real qusetion is "Are relatively static, exploration style adventures deviations from the D&D norm?" My assertion is No, they're not. Greyhawk is full of them: look at some of the scenario outlines in various Greyhawk products, or classic Greyhawk modules like ToH. Many of these involve explorations of ancient ruins or hunting for myseterious artefacts. They are not particularly time sensitive. If balance between PC options breaks down in such scenarios - because there is no cost to PC spellcasters for nova-ing and then withdrawing to rest - then at a minimum _I would expect the rulebooks to mention this_. It is not hard to write an RPG rulebook that talks frankly about how the game does or doesn't handle various aspects of balance (Burning Wheel does this; so does Over the Edge).

But if such scenarios are meant to be part of what your game supports - and I don't think I'm pushing against the traditional boundaries of D&D very much by having run these sorts of scenarios - then the game shouldn't break down.

The flipside of this is that if the PC build and player resource rules assume time-sensitive scenarios in which spellcasters cannot nova then this should be expressly stated in the scenario-design guidelines.



Alzrius said:


> enemy casters can pretty well be expected to nova in your typical kick-in-the-door session of play - they have invaders running about the place, intent on killing everyone, so why would they hold back anyway? Ironically, they'll be more inclined not to nova if they think that they can escape (or bargain, or surrender and be treated humanely, etc.), so that they can keep some resources in reserve and seize an opportunity that will arrive later, since they'll be alive later to seize it.



I don't quite see what this has to do with enemy NPCs scrying-and-frying.



Alzrius said:


> this is fun because it's presumed that the PCs will anticipate this, and make their own adjustments accordingly when in a defensive position (e.g. when camping for the evening). That means they'll have to not only set aside resources beforehand, but also adjust their strategies to try and pursue tactics that discourage this sort of retaliation in the first place...and just like that, people are strategically planning in-character.



It's not entirely clear, but you seem to be assuming that my players don't strategically plan (whether in or out of character) and that my players don't play strategically.

I don't know the full raft of 3E options - as I've already noted, it's not my game - but in classic D&D the only teleport-exclusion spells I recall are anti-magic shell (which is 6th level for MUs and from memory has a duration of 1 turn per level) and Forbiddance in UA, which is a 6th level Cleric spell and from memory requires a holy place or somewhere similar to cast it. So locking out scry-and-fry is not all that easy (especially with UA, which makes scrying available in the form of mid-level spells like Magic Mirror). And in any event the stakes are very high - one Fireball spell can wipe out all the MUs on the PC side (d6 dice vs d4 HD). Apart from anything else, this puts a lot of weight on the GM to decide how hard to push with his/her NPCs, and those GM decisions are certainly in danger of overshadowing the significance of player choices in contributing to the overall outcome.

For me, the bottom line issue is not whether strategic play is fun or  not - sometimes it can be, though these days I prefer action resolution-focused tactical play - but whether scry-and-fry is fun. I've played with a lot of it. By mutual agreement my table changed the rules to get rid of it. (First, changes to Rolemaster; then, playing 4e which doesn't have it.) I don't think anyone at my table misses it.

It's at least as big an issue as martial healing, in my view, which is to say is at least as worthy of modularisation.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 27, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> PCs will anticipate this [scry and fry], and make their own adjustments accordingly when in a defensive position (e.g. when camping for the evening). That means they'll have to not only set aside resources beforehand, but also adjust their strategies to try and pursue tactics that discourage this sort of retaliation in the first place...and just like that, people are strategically planning in-character.




Playing DnD as a wargame is one valid playstyle. It is not the norm, however. And the discussion has drifted pretty far off topic.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Playing DnD as a wargame is one valid playstyle. It is not the norm, however.



Can we flip this around? What I mean is, instead of thinking about what is or isn't the norm, can we think about what sort of scope for action resolution, scene (re-)framing, etc is appropriate for different styles of play?

Whether or not we want metagame abilities to be part of the game, I think this sort of analysis requires a fairly ruthless willingness to discuss the game and its components in metagame terms. For instance, instead of discussing teleport, and scry-and-fry, in terms of ingame fictional setups, we need to talk about the range of player resources and GM counters involved in this sort of play, and whether or not martial PCs have access to them. For instance, if martial PCs have special abilities in relation to providing safe havens (in in-fiction terms this might involve strongholds) then they can play some sort of meaningful role in the scry-and-fry game.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 27, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Can we flip this around? ...




Yes, it is more interesting to find exploration style framing powers to create the kind of game we want than it is to discuss what game-styles are badwrongfun.

So, for example, if scry-and-fry annoys us, we coudl give the ranger an ability to make a campsite so camouflaged that it becomes harder to scry on, or even so that the scrying becomes less informative - say by creating terrain features not visible in the typical birds-eye view of a teleport, but which misleads a teleportation. These could be either something you describe how you do (stunts) or an ability you have (class ability, background trait). Using methods like this we can then make our preferred playstyle easier to achieve.

Of course, this will only help if we have some kind of idea of what play-style we prefer. ^^


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2013)

Starfox said:


> if scry-and-fry annoys us, we coudl give the ranger an ability to make a campsite so camouflaged that it becomes harder to scry on, or even so that the scrying becomes less informative - say by creating terrain features not visible in the typical birds-eye view of a teleport, but which misleads a teleportation. These could be either something you describe how you do (stunts) or an ability you have (class ability, background trait). Using methods like this we can then make our preferred playstyle easier to achieve.



I like this!

To make it particular to rangers it seems that we need to make it some sort of class ability rather than a generic ability of the Survival or Stealth skill. In 3E terms, we could build on Camouflage (perhaps dropping its level a bit, too) - while in natural terrain the ranger can use Hide/Stealth to obscure him-/herself and friends from scrying, magical tracking etc. (Opposed rolls could be used to implement this, though they have their own mathematical oddities as a resolution system.)

In order to avoid having to make a big list of things that the ability can and can't do, maybe it could be framed in more general terms with a list of examples:

_Camouflage_: While in natural terrain, a ranger of Nth level or higher can use the Hide/Stealth skill in ways that go beyond the ordinary limits of the skill. Examples include:


Making a Hide check even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment;


Making a Hide check to obscure him-/herself (and a campsite, wilderness hut, etc that has cover/concealment from natural terrain) from scrying, magical tracking and the like;


Making a Hide check to make him-/herself (and a campsite, wilderness hut, etc that has cover/concealment from natural terrain) invisible;

etc​
The _Hide in Plain Sight_ ability could then be framed more expressly as a powerup - Hide in natural terrain even while being observed, or do any of the above options even if there is no cover/concealment (eg blocking scrying even in a featureless desert).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 27, 2013)

Hmmm...

Simply arranging your campsite so that the best locations to teleport into for an attack are protected by mundane traps would be a good start on that- even a True Sight through the Scry won't automatically detect those...

For bonus points, make sure that OTHER areas are guarded by magical traps.  Because those ARE detectable while scrying, it will make those spaces with mere mechanical traps look _soooooo_ much more appealing.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 27, 2013)

But is this really an ability, or just using tactics? In a Combat as War setting, you'd need to develop methodologies for things like this, and ten take 15 minutes or so at every campside implementing them. Sounds more like a playstyle-thing to me.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2013)

Starfox said:


> But is this really an ability, or just using tactics? In a Combat as War setting, you'd need to develop methodologies for things like this, and ten take 15 minutes or so at every campside implementing them. Sounds more like a playstyle-thing to me.



Are you responding to [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] or to me? (Or both?)

From my perspective, the difference between what I'm suggesting (building on what I took to be your idea) and DannyA, is that my suggestion doesn't require the player to specify what, in detail, the PC is doing any more than a caster player needs to know the details of what, in the fiction, is involved in producing a magical effect. The player, based on a fictional input (the ranger is in natural terrain that provides cover/concealment) is able to stipulate a fictional output (the ranger, his/her campsite, etc as appropriate) is occluded from scrying due to the PC's superlative ability at camouflage.

That's not to say that fictional positioning has no role to play, but it is all at the input stage (is there natural terrain that provides cover/concealment?) rather than at the details-of-resolution stage.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 27, 2013)

N'raac said:


> So let's reverse this - the L1 wizard with the right spell to target the fighter (poor will save and least likely to have a significant stat bonus) still has a 1/3 chance of his most powerful ability failing. How much higher should that chance of failure be?




I'd say 1/3 sounds right for first level.  1/6 for NPC classes.  _And at all higher levels spells are easier to save against._  You go AD&D style in which the spell save depends on the defender, not the attacker. This is why you use Evocation as your primary school of combat magic.  Evocation spells do half damage to the target even if they save.  It therefore isn't frustration - it simply means that you use save-or-suck or save-or-die spells only when you've somehow rigged the enemy's saving throw.



> why play a spellcaster at all?




You mean other than the ability to rain down fire from the sky, to create walls of earth with a snap of your fingers, and the ability to fly?  If you want _more than that_ I don't know why you'd play anything other than a spellcaster.



> If "teleport in; one battle; teleport out" is such an obvious and powerful tactic




Unless it's incredibly rare.  The highest level PC character in Gygax' Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14 - and he was a fighter (see [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for a more comprehensive answer).  There are _very_ few teleporters in Eberron.  In AD&D you didn't often use Teleport because the chance of veering off course could teleport you into solid rock, causing instant death.  Straight up wasn't the problem.  Straight down was.  Teleport in, fight, teleport out is an obvious and powerful tactic _only if you are in a setting with a lot of high level magic users and teleporting working the way it does in 3e/3.5_.  And in AD&D a 9th level wizard was influential enough that you almost never wanted to risk them with a 2% chance of instant death (studied carefully) or 4% (seen casually).  Even teleporting home had a 1% chance of instant death.

Scry and Fry is therefore the nuclear option in AD&D.  You only do it against incredibly serious threats because casters are a very powrful strategic resource.  It's powerful but high risk.  Only in 3e, where they removed the "Teleport into solid rock: Instant kill" is it a problem.  And then only in a setting where 10th level wizards are common.  And yes, I agree in 3e they should.  But in AD&D the chance of any random guardsmen being important enough that Bigby, Mordaniken, or Melf decide to deal with them personally is incredibly low.

Of course if you have decided to assassinate Mordaniken personally then you'd better come up with an answer to teleport shenanigans.  But even then he probably won't do it other than to get away because he knows the risk of teleporting low - and until it's too late will probably think it's higher than the risk of being killed by some punks trying to assassinate him.  (This, incidently, is another reason for Wizards to build towers - if Mordaniken tries to teleport into his inner sanctum and ends up low then he will only teleport 1" low - or in other words onto the wrong floor of his tower rather than into solid rock - and he gets to laugh at Bigby when Bigby (who has studied his friend's teleportation room carefully) visits him, screws up and teleports 2" low, or into the dungeons).



> If a small cadre of raiders Teleport to the PC's location, attack, then withraw by teleportation on Monday, then reappear with the same tactic on Tuesday, will the PC's have a plan for Wednesday,




Why?  The tactic failed twice.  If it hadn't failed the PCs would be dead.  They are probably more alert than previously, but the raiders failed at their objectives.  Yes, I'm being picky.  But this is part of the problem.  Scry-and-fry tends to kill, so you need to drill the entire army in anti-teleport shenanigans.



Quartz said:


> The 3E base save system is rubbish. I suggest using the 3E epic save system - level or HD / 2 round down plus +2 Class Bonus where a Class or Prestige Class grants a Good save. It's simple and works a treat. No one has poor saves, and no one gets unbeatable saves.




Out of interest have you also tweaked the attack chances so they don't outstrip even what are now the equivalent to the old good saving throws?  But I definitely agree this is an improvement.



pemerton said:


> It's at least as big an issue as martial healing, in my view, which is to say is at least as worthy of modularisation.




Agreed.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 27, 2013)

Starfox said:


> But is this really an ability, or just using tactics? In a Combat as War setting, you'd need to develop methodologies for things like this, and ten take 15 minutes or so at every campside implementing them. Sounds more like a playstyle-thing to me.





The thing is, if we turn these kind of things into abilities or powers that are somehow purchased, either through point-buy or through slots in your class build, you cut into the space for stunts; improvisational, spur-of-the-moment inspiration things.

For example, yesterday in   [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] campaign, we ran into an evil wizard pirate captain who had an item we wanted to "aquire". When we boarded, he hid in a force field bubble (i.e. a "Resilient Sphere") to buff and summon.

I got a flash of inspiration and, in best swashbuckling style, cut down a sail and wrapped it around his bubble, partially to cut of his sight and ability to lead, partially so that when he dismissed his bubble he would get entangled by the sail and lose actions to free himself, giving the barbarian a few extra attacks on him before he used whatever magic he was preparing. 

If I had needed to have a cut-down-sails-and-entangle-people-with-them power purchased beforehand, I could never have done something like that.


When we played 4E, I once grabbed an opportunity to grab a conveniently placed pillar, and swing around it to knock down an opponent from behind - and the rogue player got furious. He argued that he haid paid for a "use the terrain to move and attack" power of some kind by using one of his rare power picks - and here I tried to do something similar *for free*...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 27, 2013)

Tuft said:


> The thing is, if we turn these kind of things into abilities or powers that are somehow purchased, either through point-buy or through slots in your class build, you cut into the space for stunts; improvisational, spur-of-the-moment inspiration things.
> ...
> When we played 4E, I once grabbed an opportunity to grab a conveniently placed pillar, and swing around it to knock down an opponent from behind - and the rogue player got furious. He argued that he haid paid for a "use the terrain to move and attack" power of some kind by using one of his rare power picks - and here I tried to do something similar *for free*...




All I can say is "Bwuh?"  Your description of 4e bears no resemblance to any 4e I have ever played.  Especially when _4e has explicit place for improvisational stunts written in the DMG and on the back of every single edition of the DM Screen._ And recommends terrain powers.  The point about a power is that you do not have to ask the DM whether something works.  It's just enough of your character that you can always find enough to use it if you meet the criteria.

But there are two basic approaches to understanding powers and under one powers encourage stunts, under the other they hinder them.  If powers are a _thing_ then they get in the way.  If powers are _the in game world representation of what is going on and the character's competences_ then they encourage stunts because they add definition and competence to the character.  (Of course stunt dice, drama dice, and plot points encourage stunts that much more).


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I know Greyhawk very well - I GMed it intermittently from the mid-80s and consistently from 1990 to 1997.
> 
> In the mid-80s boxed set, there are two soft-bound books. The thinner one (I can't remember now how it is labelled) sets out the class and levels of the rules of the various lands of Greyhawk. The highest level is the 18th level ruler of Stonefist (the Archcleric of Veluna may be at a similar level, I think). Many of the other rulers are between 10th and 14th level.
> 
> ...




That's not an issue of Greyhawk having fewer high-level characters, it's an issue of you not citing your sources very well. You say that Greyhawk has fewer high-level NPCs than the Forgotten Realms; since you originally didn't offer any qualifiers to that statement, you pretty clearly referring to the two settings as a whole. 

Here's the thing: using just one of the earlier campaign setting products for Greyhawk - which not only has less development than later releases, but doesn't take into account the many, many adventures and sourcebooks also released for the setting - doesn't prove very much unto itself, since you're taking an extremely-specific snapshot of the setting and comparing it to a non-specific view of the Forgotten Realms to prove your point.

Either take everything into account, across the entire product lines, or compare single instances of products with a similar focus that were released at similar times, so that you can at least try to approximate an apples-to-apples comparison.

Presuming you meant that you were looking at the World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting, for instance, how many high-level characters does it list compared to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Set?



> _I guess one might run a campaign in which the PCs first face off against the Horned Society (before Iuz did?), then Iuz and his hangers on, then Iggwilv and Tuerny, then Vecna. But that's only one of many possible GH campaigns. (Also, Eclavdra presumably has trouble teleporting to the PCs for the same reason they have trouble teleporting out of the Vault of the Drow.)_




Sure, there are many other possible campaigns. I don't think that it's going too far outside of the baseline expectations of the D&D game to presume that most of those will have enemies with strategic and tactical options that are analogous to those of the PCs with some fairly substantive degree of frequency, rather than being exceptionally rare.

Also, Eclavdra spends plenty of time above ground (e.g. in Dorakaa), so that's not a concern.



> _People on these boards keep accusing me of being disingenuous. I wonder if they're all familiar with the definition of that word: "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity" (from the Random House dictionary via dictionary.reference.com)._




Or perhaps everyone else isn't using the word wrong, and there's a reason that they think that.



> _What makes you think I'm being insincere? Not everyone whose experiences and opinions differ from yours is a liar (likewise I don't suppose that you're lying about your experiences and opinions just because they differe from mine)._




The above example with Greyhawk is a pretty good example. You make a blanket statement about one campaign in regards to another, based on...comparing one boxed set to (while it's never specified, that seems to default to) the entire other campaign world. That does seem to come off as insincere.



> _The real qusetion is "Are relatively static, exploration style adventures deviations from the D&D norm?" My assertion is No, they're not. Greyhawk is full of them: look at some of the scenario outlines in various Greyhawk products, or classic Greyhawk modules like ToH. Many of these involve explorations of ancient ruins or hunting for myseterious artefacts. They are not particularly time sensitive. If balance between PC options breaks down in such scenarios - because there is no cost to PC spellcasters for nova-ing and then withdrawing to rest - then at a minimum I would expect the rulebooks to mention this. It is not hard to write an RPG rulebook that talks frankly about how the game does or doesn't handle various aspects of balance (Burning Wheel does this; so does Over the Edge)._




Notice, in your first sentence here, you talk about "adventures" as opposed to "campaigns." Yes, D&D has adventures that are like that - no one is suggesting that it doesn't, or that such adventures won't be part of a campaign. But what's being suggested is a challenge to the notion that a campaign is made up totally, or even primarily, of such adventures as part of its default assumption (e.g. the assumption used when balancing the expected degree of balance - in terms of narrative options - between classes).

Even Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign ended with the PCs being driven out of Blackmoor by their enemies because they were so busy raiding the dungeons of Castle Blackmoor, for example, that they didn't pay attention to the political maneuvering in the surrounding lands (for more about this, I recommend Jon Peterson's excellent book Playing at the World).

The reason the game doesn't talk about issues of "nova-ing" for spellcasters as being a regular upset for balance between characters is that it doesn't presume you're going to running a game of endless static set-pieces.



> _But if such scenarios are meant to be part of what your game supports - and I don't think I'm pushing against the traditional boundaries of D&D very much by having run these sorts of scenarios - then the game shouldn't break down._




The game doesn't break down because they're only part of what the game supports, not a majority of it. As stated previously, such adventures can be a viable part of the game - spellcasters deserve their time to shine too - but they're not the sum total of it.



> _The flipside of this is that if the PC build and player resource rules assume time-sensitive scenarios in which spellcasters cannot nova then this should be expressly stated in the scenario-design guidelines._




See above. Even Gary, in the 1E DMG, stated (in all caps, no less) that you can't have a stable campaign without effective time management.



> _I don't quite see what this has to do with enemy NPCs scrying-and-frying._




You raised the issue of such tactics leading to a TPK; I'm pointing out why that's not so.



> _It's not entirely clear, but you seem to be assuming that my players don't strategically plan (whether in or out of character) and that my players don't play strategically._




I'm not assuming anything about your players. I'm responding to the points you raised, nothing more.



> _I don't know the full raft of 3E options - as I've already noted, it's not my game - but in classic D&D the only teleport-exclusion spells I recall are anti-magic shell (which is 6th level for MUs and from memory has a duration of 1 turn per level) and Forbiddance in UA, which is a 6th level Cleric spell and from memory requires a holy place or somewhere similar to cast it. So locking out scry-and-fry is not all that easy (especially with UA, which makes scrying available in the form of mid-level spells like Magic Mirror). And in any event the stakes are very high - one Fireball spell can wipe out all the MUs on the PC side (d6 dice vs d4 HD). Apart from anything else, this puts a lot of weight on the GM to decide how hard to push with his/her NPCs, and those GM decisions are certainly in danger of overshadowing the significance of player choices in contributing to the overall outcome._




You're making a lot of presumptions here, even within the framework of just using 1E. 

By the time the PCs are at the level where scry-buff-teleport is an option, there are options for them to be on guard against it. These don't have to be active spells, since there are magic items, allied creatures, non-magical traps that can hinder attackers, and many more that can be done to foil such an attack. That's not even getting into anti-scrying measures.

But those are the tactical options. There are strategic options here that can be employed within the context of the game world to stop it from getting to this point in the first place. Negotiations, bribes, political alliances (e.g. "if you attack me, my allies from Elysium will come after you"), hostages - all are ways that PCs can interact with NPCs in the game world without it becoming a matter of class (or other mechanical) balance issues...in other words, changing the narrative space that you're working within, and working within another.

Finally, I'm not sure what you think the _fireball_ issue proves, since if one can wipe out your magic-users, that'll be just as true in a dungeon as it is in a surprise attack on their camp.



> _For me, the bottom line issue is not whether strategic play is fun or  not - sometimes it can be, though these days I prefer action resolution-focused tactical play - but whether scry-and-fry is fun. I've played with a lot of it. By mutual agreement my table changed the rules to get rid of it. (First, changes to Rolemaster; then, playing 4e which doesn't have it.) I don't think anyone at my table misses it._




If they don't think that being ambushed is fun, then why don't they act at a strategic level to prevent it in the first place?



> _It's at least as big an issue as martial healing, in my view, which is to say is at least as worthy of modularisation._




I disagree; see above.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Playing DnD as a wargame is one valid playstyle. It is not the norm, however. And the discussion has drifted pretty far off topic.




Strictly speaking, no one here is in a position to say what "the norm" is, unless there's been a wide-ranging poll of campaign play-styles of which I remain unaware.

That said, I do think that such a play-style is within the presumptions that the game makes with regard to itself.

Finally, I think that this is within the context of the discussion, since play-style is another way of examining the narrative space options that characters have (e.g. certain play-styles work to highlight, or ignore, certain narrative spaces more than others).


----------



## N'raac (Jun 27, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I see a huge difference between "dumping" INT and CHA to ensure you have sufficient STR, CON and DEX to do you core job as a fighter, and "dumping" STR as an MU and then relying on your friends to carry you rations and water. Even with STR 8 you can carry 26 lb without trouble - that's a couple of spellbooks without any trouble.




This depends on what you consider "your core job as a fighter".  If it is to be a tank in combat, that implies it is not your core job to manipulate the narrative - that job, perhaps, belongs to the spellcasters.  We typically used 28 point point buy.  That allows 4 14's and 2 10's, among an array of other iterations.  Let's see - you could have a 14 INT, 14 CHA, 14 STR, 14 CON, 12 DEX (maxes your bonus in full plate) and 8 WIS.  You won't get extreme bonus hp or attack/damage modifiers, but I'd say you're competent as a Fighter, while having 5 skill points per level (as a human, since your stats are unmodified) and a decent CHA.  You've traded off being a hulking tank for some extra versatility.  You can also access every Fighter feat tree (Combat Expertise requires 13 INT, IIRC).



pemerton said:


> There are a lot of assumptions here about playstyle, campaign design etc. Nothing wrong with those campaigns, playstyles etc for those who enjoy them, but the fact that there are some approaches to the game in which teleport is not a strong strategy doesn't ential that other approaches are inherently flawed.




It does entail that some styles will enhance the power of some spells.  XX Person spells are much more powerful in a game with few monsters, since a much greater proportion of enemies are affected by those spells.  Does that make them "overpowered"?  Not in general, but perhaps in that campaign style specifically.  Certainly an Enchantment focuse Wizard will be much more powerful than in a game focused on the Undead Legions of the Lich Lord.  The game is, in my view, designed with the expectation of a wide variety of enemies, challenges and encounters.  A more focused game may need some changes to take into account the manner in which that focus weakens some options and strengthens others.



pemerton said:


> First, on counter-strategies (and NPCs using the same tactics, etc): this assumes a campaign world in which the PCs are not distinctive in capabilities or stature, but just one of many high level actors.




If there are few or no equals to the power level of the PC's, Teleport should not be the only ability which seems inordinately powerful.  If the PC's are the most powerful men and women in the game setting, then conbat simply won't be much of a challenge to them, and the GM will need to structure other challenges.  Such as situations where "killing the enemy" is not a viable "win" proposition.  If your goal is to unite the disparate, squabbling Peoples of the West to be ready to face invasion by the Evil Eastern Empire, Scry & Fry on the leadership of the Kingdoms of the West probably isnt your best approach - now we have thrown the whole western sub-continent into leaderless disarray, which doesn't really solve the problem.



pemerton said:


> That might work for Forgotten Realms (or similar worlds); it doesn't work very well for Greyhawk (or similar worlds). Greyhawk is not chock-full of arbitrary numbers of high level characters, and high-level PCs (ie 10+) can be expected to be among the most powerful actors in the world. Thus, they _will_ live in some of the strongest towers or fotresses in the world (imperial palaces, Drawmij's underwater hideout, etc), whether as allies of other powerful beings or having defeated them and taken over their houses.




If there are only a dozen or so (or, say, 100, including bad guys and uncaring folk the PC's will not interact with) people in the world of L10+, how is it so easy to acquire your pick of 5th level spells as a wizard?  If you are "among the most powerful actors in the world", would it not logically follow that very  little can actually challenge you, so scry & fry on most enemies is simple, even routine?  Perhaps to the point it is not ven worth spending game time on such petty activities of these powerful PC's, and we should relegate them to behind the scenes activity, simply taken as a given for such powerful inividuals.  Only those rare enemies of a comparable power level really  provide enough of a challenge to merit focusing precious game time on.



pemerton said:


> Second, on the enemy "just sitting around waiting": if the game is ToH style, or Maure Castle style - ie a fairly traditional scenario in which the main goal is exploration of an ancient and largely uninhabited fortresss/dungeon/etc, then the "enemy" - the traps, golems etc _will_ just be sitting around waiting, and the casters will be able to nova without cost.




In such a case, it makes sense to ensure each indiviual encounter is potent enough to challenge the PC's on its own merits, as a single encounter.  "Traditional Scenarios" also include Against the Giants and the Caves of Chaos, where activity by the remaining enemy while you are resting up is not only logical,  but expected.  As I recall ToH, any single encounter had great potential to be lethal in and of itself, or disarmed with the use of few or no resources limited in their use.



pemerton said:


> Third, in circumstances where NPCs _do_ use retaliatory scry-and-fry, how does that make the game better? All it does is mean that the PCs suffer the full brunt of NPC caster nova-ing. In my experience it's a good recipe for TPK. Not really conducive to the ongoing campaign, I've found..




I've already commented on the Teleport aspect of this strategy in light of the RAW spell rules.  I'm still waiting for the "scry" strategy which allows for reliable location of the main enemy.  One aspect of those very "static environment" scenarios you describe was the hidden nature of many of the threats posed.  You can Scry that green devil's head with the wide, black mouth for as long as you want without having any better idea how to deal with it.  The Tomb of Acerack will look exactly as bleak and deserted for as long as you want to look.  Whether you Scry or get there and stand, looking around but cautiously touching nothing.  And, all by himself, Acerak is fully lethal to a high level party fully rested and loaded for bear.



Neonchameleon said:


> I'd say 1/3 sounds right for first level.  1/6 for NPC classes.  _And at all higher levels spells are easier to save against._  You go AD&D style in which the spell save depends on the defender, not the attacker. This is why you use Evocation as your primary school of combat magic.  Evocation spells do half damage to the target even if they save.  It therefore isn't frustration - it simply means that you use save-or-suck or save-or-die spells only when you've somehow rigged the enemy's saving throw.




I found that old school moel basically meant wizards would seek out spells lacking a save.  Fighters can do damage, thanks.  That 10d6 Fireball, 5d6 if we assume the enemy will typically save, lacks Evasion-type abilities or fire resistance, averages 17.5 damage.  Meanwhile, the Fighter pumps that out in one swing - and he's getting 2 attacks per round, well on his way to 3, at 10th level.  And don't cast it once melee is joined!  Assuming we forego Scry & Fry so we have some 5th level slots available, we have Cloudkill (don't let your teammates get stuck in the cloud, and watch out for enemies not needing to breathe), and cone of cold (10d6 damage from a different source, same save for half, and watch out for that Fighter in front of you!) to do damage.  Now, if the goal is to have Wizards provide battlefield control (Wall of Force/Stone and Rock to Mud), scouting (Prying Eyes), transport (Teleport) and allies (Faithful Hound, Summon Monster V), we have more options.  But spells with a "save means wasted action"?  Exercise in frustration if we're down to a 1 in 3 or 4 chance it will do anything.  May as well get rid of those spells - the others will be clearly superior choices.



Neonchameleon said:


> The highest level PC character in Gygax' Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14 - and he was a fighter (see @_*pemerton*_ for a more comprehensive answer).  There are _very_ few teleporters in Eberron.




So why are L5 spells so easy to come by that our newly L9 wizard has his pick of the litter?



Neonchameleon said:


> Why?  The tactic failed twice.  If it hadn't failed the PCs would be dead.  They are probably more alert than previously, but the raiders failed at their objectives.  Yes, I'm being picky.  But this is part of the problem.  Scry-and-fry tends to kill, so you need to drill the entire army in anti-teleport shenanigans.




Seriously?  It failed twice?  Why do the PC's keep at it, then?  It has weakened the enemy forces, taking out guards on each occasion.  The raiders have whittled away a chunk of our defenses.  Seems to me they are remarkably effective, so we better find a way to deal with this before we are all wiped out.



Alzrius said:


> Finally, I think that this is within the context of the discussion, since play-style is another way of examining the narrative space options that characters have (e.g. certain play-styles work to highlight, or ignore, certain narrative spaces more than others).




Definitely.  If the campaign is just a series of static encounters, "narrative space" means something very different than if it is a complex array of players engaged in political machinations.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 27, 2013)

* Yawns

Maybe time to start a new thread for the original discussion?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Maybe time to start a new thread for the original discussion?




"Can't let you do that, Fox."


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 27, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Here's the thing: using just one of the earlier campaign setting products for Greyhawk - which not only has less development than later releases, but doesn't take into account the many, many adventures and sourcebooks also released for the setting - doesn't prove very much unto itself, since you're taking an extremely-specific snapshot of the setting and comparing it to a non-specific view of the Forgotten Realms to prove your point.




The adventures are a decent point.  But part of the point of the Realms is that it has a ridiculous amount of sourcebooks as a part of the world and that it is large and high powered.  That the Greyhawk campaign setting is called explicitely "World of Greyhawk" implies that it covers just about all the movers and shakers.  The very name "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" implies that there is a lot more out there - it's simply the part of the Realms you are expected to campaign in.   Now please stop accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of being disingenuous simply because he doesn't make the apples to oranges comparison you would like him to make.

And if you want the all-in comparison, as far as I am aware, Greyhawk never had an equivalent to the FR1-16 series, starting with Waterdeep and the North and ending with The Shining South.  And in 2e Greyhawk was treated about as kindly as 4e was later to treat the Realms...

Me, I'd call "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" - which is what Pemerton is taking to be a fair comparison to "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" which is what I believe he is taking for the Realms.



> Either take everything into account, across the entire product lines, or compare single instances of products with a similar focus that were released at similar times, so that you can at least try to approximate an apples-to-apples comparison.




Why "Released at simmilar times"?  If we do that then we have to drop seven years of Greyhawk because Greyhawk was first published in 1980 and the Realms campaign set in 1987.  As was FR1 - Waterdeep and the North.  And FR2: Moonshae.  In short the Realms (two 96 page books) was always intended to be published with supplements - Greyhawk was not other than a little material in Dragon - and World of Greyhawk is a total of 128 pages (i.e. only about twice as long as Moonshae).

And comparing a product that was intended to be standalone (and hence had no immediate expansions) as standalone against one that was released only shortly before its first two expansions _that it was intended to be used with _is to me the sensible way to do things.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 27, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I found that old school moel basically meant wizards would seek out spells lacking a save. Fighters can do damage, thanks.




Your point?  That being able to create a Wall of Stone _simply isn't enough?_  I don't see how "Fighters can do one aspect of what wizards can so wizards should do more" is a good argument.  Especially as Gygax deliberately boosted the fighter with Unearthed Arcana for balanced purposes.



> But spells with a "save means wasted action"? Exercise in frustration if we're down to a 1 in 3 or 4 chance it will do anything. May as well get rid of those spells - the others will be clearly superior choices.




Indeed.  Leave the fighting and killing to the fighters.  It's what they are good at - and they don't get anything else.



> So why are L5 spells so easy to come by that our newly L9 wizard has his pick of the litter?




Depends which system you are using.  In AD&D they aren't.



> Seriously? It failed twice? Why do the PC's keep at it, then?




Because the PCs don't fail with it.  The PCs normally inflict a TPK with it.  On the other hand if it's the third time it's attempted against the PCs then the PCs _must have survived the first two_.  That's why I say that in your example it failed twice.



> It has weakened the enemy forces, taking out guards on each occasion. The raiders have whittled away a chunk of our defenses. Seems to me they are remarkably effective, so we better find a way to deal with this before we are all wiped out.




Where are your witnesses coming from?  You just know that your guys are getting wiped out - but unless there are survivors you don't necessarily know how.  Whether it's teleportation or the much more likely simple invisibility.  Almost as deadly and can be done by a much lower wizard, therefore much more likely.  Especially as invisibility doesn't mean that the wizard will eventually kill themselves with their own spell, unlike AD&D teleportation.

And the wizard gains powers to help with political machinations.  The fighter _did_ in AD&D - that's part of what the fighter's small army as a class feature was about.  That stopped in 3e (and didn't return in 4e).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2013)

N'raac said:


> We typically used 28 point point buy.  That allows 4 14's and 2 10's, among an array of other iterations.  Let's see - you could have a 14 INT, 14 CHA, 14 STR, 14 CON, 12 DEX (maxes your bonus in full plate) and 8 WIS.  You won't get extreme bonus hp or attack/damage modifiers, but I'd say you're competent as a Fighter



I'm surprised and interested that you think this is a competent fighter. Since I first started playing I've always aimed at 16+ in a prime requisite (in the old days, to get the +10% XP bonus).



N'raac said:


> how is it so easy to acquire your pick of 5th level spells as a wizard?





N'raac said:


> So why are L5 spells so easy to come by that our newly L9 wizard has his pick of the litter?



Research. Plus looting ancient Suel archives.



Alzrius said:


> Even Gary, in the 1E DMG, stated (in all caps, no less) that you can't have a stable campaign without effective time management.



I always understood him to be talking primarily about time as a resource for training, research, travel etc. Not primarily about the dynamics of NPC revenge against PC expeditions.



N'raac said:


> In such a case, it makes sense to ensure each indiviual encounter is potent enough to challenge the PC's on its own merits, as a single encounter.



Sure. The problem with this in a system of asymmetric balance (daily vs at will abilities) is that the daily-ability PCs can nova, and be comparatively more powerful.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> The adventures are a decent point. But part of the point of the Realms is that it has a ridiculous amount of sourcebooks as a part of the world and that it is large and high powered.  That the Greyhawk campaign setting is called explicitely "World of Greyhawk" implies that it covers just about all the movers and shakers.  The very name "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" implies that there is a lot more out there - it's simply the part of the Realms you are expected to campaign in.




I disagree, and think that you're reading much too much into the wording of the titles. As I previously showed, the idea that the Forgotten Realms has a great deal of high-level characters whereas Greyhawk has a paucity of them is easily disproven - stating that the particular wording of some of the older campaign setting titles have implications about how expansive they are in their coverage of the world and it's characters is, well, I think you can guess the word. 

That's without even covering that the issue of those two products covering roughly similar geographic areas (e.g. the subcontinent of the Flanaess to the continent of Faerun).



> _ Now please stop accusing pemerton of being disingenuous simply because he doesn't make the apples to oranges comparison you would like him to make._




First, I've already amply demonstrated that it's apples to apples - your attempt to redefine it otherwise using the wording of the materials simply doesn't hold up.

Secondly, please stop accusing me of making accusations just because I pointed out a flaw in someone else's logic. I'm simply stating that it's difficult to sympathize with people who say that the game has an inherent problem that's created entirely by their play-style. 



> _And if you want the all-in comparison, as far as I am aware, Greyhawk never had an equivalent to the FR1-16 series, starting with Waterdeep and the North and ending with The Shining South.  And in 2e Greyhawk was treated about as kindly as 4e was later to treat the Realms..._




If you want to go all-in, you have to take _everything_ into account that's set on Greyhawk. Not just it's 2E supplements with the world logo on the cover (or lack thereof). Greyhawk-material can be found in generic 2E adventures and sourcebooks such as _Die Vecna Die!_, _TSR Jam 1999_, _Reverse Dungeon_, _Guide to Hell_, _Bastion of Faith_, etc. Plus it had fairly intense development across three adventure paths in the pages of _Dungeon_ during the 3E era - The Shackled City, The Age of Worms, and The Savage Tide - plus a number of smaller adventures and articles. That's without even getting into the _Dragon_ materials (or _Polyhedron_, or the short-lived _Living Greyhawk Journal_).

Many, if not most, of these sources had high-level characters.



> _Me, I'd call "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" - which is what Pemerton is taking to be a fair comparison to "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" which is what I believe he is taking for the Realms._




That's not what he said, though. Likewise, even if it was, cherry-picking which materials to use so that you can artificially arrive at the conclusion you've already postulated is...insincere. 



> _Why "Released at simmilar times"?  If we do that then we have to drop seven years of Greyhawk because Greyhawk was first published in 1980 and the Realms campaign set in 1987.  As was FR1 - Waterdeep and the North.  And FR2: Moonshae.  In short the Realms (two 96 page books) was always intended to be published with supplements - Greyhawk was not other than a little material in Dragon - and World of Greyhawk is a total of 128 pages (i.e. only about twice as long as Moonshae)._




I threw the "similar times" qualifier in there because products released at similar times are more likely to reflect the same design philosophy, as a general rule (and, ideally, to prevent cross-edition comparison of specific products, since that can have some degree of impact).

Note that the two campaign settings mentioned above were in 1983 (Greyhawk) and 1987 (Forgotten Realms), which allows for the shift in design philosophy mentioned above, and is why further material was developed for both settings (hence why Greyhawk had _The City of Greyhawk_, _Wars_, _From the Ashes_, _Treasures of Greyhawk_, etc. over the next few years). No one's denying that FR had more sourcebooks, certainly, but that doesn't mean anything in the context of how many high-level characters the settings had.



> _And comparing a product that was intended to be standalone (and hence had no immediate expansions) as standalone against one that was released only shortly before its first two expansions that it was intended to be used with is to me the sensible way to do things._




I disagree. It's not sensible, since you're suggesting that it's somehow apropos to compare one campaign setting boxed set against an entire product line to determine which had more high-level characters. There's a reason why Greyhawk had further development as well (see above).



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I always understood him to be talking primarily about time as a resource for training, research, travel etc. Not primarily about the dynamics of NPC revenge against PC expeditions.




"NPC revenge" is just one facet of it; it's meant to remind the GMs that there's a living world out there which is reacting to - and influencing - the PCs. Hostile NPCs are a part of this.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 27, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> Out of interest have you also tweaked the attack chances so they don't outstrip even what are now the equivalent to the old good saving throws?  But I definitely agree this is an improvement.




I'm not sure I understand: they did to start with. The max base saving throw was +12 for a single-classed character at L20. A character with 3 classes (base or prestige) might boost that to +16. But he'd have some very low saves too. That's still shy of the L20 Fighter's BAB of +20. Under my system you get a max of +12, the same as before but your base saves at L20 would be +12/+10/+10, not (say) +16/+3/+3. Notice that this stops the cheese dip of 2 levels of Monk. 

I don't have a group to test it, but I've been toying with simply saying that combat-types get BAB=Level, everyone else gets BAB/2 rounded down. This really seems to hit rogues until you realise they can take a levels of a combat class - Rog 15 / Ftr 5 gives a BAB of +12, for example. Monks would get full BAB but drop their flurry of blows (which is just TWF) and their special attack progression and their open hand attack does 1d6 + level/2 rounded down.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> The adventures are a decent point.  But part of the point of the Realms is that it has a ridiculous amount of sourcebooks as a part of the world and that it is large and high powered.  That the Greyhawk campaign setting is called explicitely "World of Greyhawk" implies that it covers just about all the movers and shakers.  The very name "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" implies that there is a lot more out there - it's simply the part of the Realms you are expected to campaign in.




This is about as ridiculous an argument as I could have imagined - that a somewhat more poetic name indicates that it's more comprehensive? That's inferring a lot of meaning with no evidence.



Neonchameleon said:


> And if you want the all-in comparison, as far as I am aware, Greyhawk never had an equivalent to the FR1-16 series, starting with Waterdeep and the North and ending with The Shining South.  And in 2e Greyhawk was treated about as kindly as 4e was later to treat the Realms...
> 
> Me, I'd call "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" - which is what Pemerton is taking to be a fair comparison to "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" which is what I believe he is taking for the Realms.




Ignorance of the sources that were published - such as WGR4: The Marklands - leads to a poor argument. There are quite a few high level NPCs in that volume. The only valid reason FR really seems to have more high level NPCs is simply because there were more published campaign setting supplements to actually detail them. But that difference offers no insight that the rate of high level characters per campaign in FR is any higher than in GH.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 27, 2013)

I'm reminded of two sayings: "With great power comes great responsibility" and "if you make your bed you'd better lie in it".

Can we at least agree that if no effort is made to curb the inherent power and versatility of magic in the campaign world then it will, almost by definition, run rampant across its face? If the deck is deliberately or inadvertently stacked in favour of a few PCs with all the magic and no comparable adversaries then they will dominate everyone else, playstyle choice or not.

There are strategic methods to curb this. Some may see this as nerfing the spell casters. I don't agree. I won't agree and I don't think it's a particularly worthwhile discussion in this thread.

Which brings me back to the matter at hand:

There are strategic methods for increasing narrative options for player characters. These involve immersing the PCs in the machinations of the campaign world. AD&D included many of these as standard: strongholds for fighters, thieves guilds for thieves, the hierarchical struggles of druids and monks. ACKS (re-)introduces some of these campaign concepts. So does Pathfinder's Ultimate Campaign. Options abound for characters to carve out their own niche in the wider world, to exert their influence and make their own plot instead of sitting around in a tavern waiting for someone to give them a quest.

So, we're left with narrative options at a tactical level.

There seem to be two strands to this: the three pillars of combat, exploration and interaction; and scene framing.

For me, D&D is cause and effect. I'm not interested in players negotiating or bidding for the opportunity to retcon the environment. There are other games in which I can do this, if I want. If I cast a spell to change the environment I'm not retconning, I'm creating an effect from a cause. I should arguably be able to use a mundane skill (or series thereof) to produce a comparable effect, possibly by re-framing the environment in my favour. There are plenty of ways to get past a wall without inventing a secret passage only my character seems to know about. This will likely take longer (in the fiction) than casting a spell but that's the benefit of magic, in my opinion.

Neither am I particularly interested in abstractly resolving opportunities for role playing encounters like infiltration in the short term. Stood outside the castle and want to get in? Cause and effect: get with the climb and stealth skills. However, taking my cue from the 1e AD&D assassination rules, I think it's entirely feasible for a thief/rogue to devote some portion of in-fiction time to infiltrate an organisation ahead of time. Think Lando Calrissian at Jabba's palace. This is where the "Surprise! It's me!" feat works, primarily because it's a strategic campaign process.

Long distance travel can be handled in an equally mundane fashion. A ranger or similarly skilled character should be able to travel great distances whilst avoiding or evading encounters. Arguably the time required to do this should be proportional to the number of travelling companions--even a large group of people can likely avoid any problems provided they don't mind taking long detours or remaining hidden for extended periods. The "anti-magic" camouflage skill is an interesting idea. I was reminded of the scene in LotR when the Fellowship evade Saruman's crebain or the Nazgul in the Dead Marshes. The evasion of magic wasn't explicit but the comparison sprung to mind. So too did Legolas' enhanced vision. It's debatable whether or not this is a magical effect but there is perhaps room for mundane perception skills that go beyond low-light vision.

The "conscript a militia" idea from up thread is interesting as a mundane summon "spell". A comparable "hue and cry" ability could enable a character to call upon joe public to grab the villain attempting to make his get away--a literal "hold person" if you will. Clearly, both of these skills/feats/whatever only work in suitable (urban) environments with a population that is at worst neutral to the character. Then again, even in an ostensibly hostile environment, the "general public" may not realise the person running away is actually on "their side" rather than the authoritative person demanding they be stopped...

The Conan d20 system has a temptress class. At its most basic this is a femme fatale but has scope for wider concepts. Whatever the details, there's scope for mundane charm and beguile skills that go beyond the usual bluff, intimidate and diplomacy. These could also be employed at a strategic level, consider Margaery Tyrell.

I'm sure there are loads of other possibilities. These are the ones that have currently sprung to mind.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 27, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> Indeed.  Leave the fighting and killing to the fighters.  It's what they are good at - and they don't get anything else.




So should the non-fighter players just sit, bored and ineffectual, during combat?  If so, then we probably need some changes to de-emphasize combat as a percentage of game play.  A perfectly valid approach.



Neonchameleon said:


> Depends which system you are using.  In AD&D they aren't.




They aren't?  Then why is the issue consistently framed in the context that this is a common strategy among PC's, which suggests to me that it must be pretty easy for them to get the spells.



Neonchameleon said:


> Because the PCs don't fail with it.  The PCs normally inflict a TPK with it.  On the other hand if it's the third time it's attempted against the PCs then the PCs _must have survived the first two_.  That's why I say that in your example it failed twice.




Why would you send the Teleporting Assassin Team against all the PC's at once?  Port in when one, two at the most, are isolated.  Just like the PC's take out a few guards (or skip right to the one endgame target).  And how does being in the Imperial Palace protect the PC's if the enemy can teleport in, blast them with surprise, and teleport away again?



Neonchameleon said:


> Where are your witnesses coming from?  You just know that your guys are getting wiped out - but unless there are survivors you don't necessarily know how.  Whether it's teleportation or the much more likely simple invisibility.  Almost as deadly and can be done by a much lower wizard, therefore much more likely.  Especially as invisibility doesn't mean that the wizard will eventually kill themselves with their own spell, unlike AD&D teleportation.




First, why would the enemy not employ the same divinations which enable unfailing intel to be gathered on them?  Second, Invisible characters leave footprints which can be tracked, trigger bell alarms, etc.  How is it the tracks just start from nowhere, then end?  Once we get to "how are they getting in?", the near-ubiquitous Teleport should come up as an option.



pemerton said:


> I'm surprised and interested that you think this is a competent fighter. Since I first started playing I've always aimed at 16+ in a prime requisite (in the old days, to get the +10% XP bonus).




One of the biggest benefits of 3e, to my mind, was the much more granular bonus structure.  In 2e, a 17 STR provided +1 to hit and +1 to damage.  That's a 12(!) STR in 3e.  A 16?  That's more like the +2/+4 bonus provided by percentile STR in the 76% range.  But then, how many AD&D fighters had a % under 50?  Similarly, a 15 DEX in 2e is a 12 in 3e; a 2e 16 is a 3e 14.  Of course, we kind of got used to having a slate of 16+ stats, typically with at least one 18, to have a "competent" 2e character.  At least that 16+ for 2e's 10% xp bonus (not always restricted to one stat) was a fairly standard expectation - getting +10% wasn't a bonus, it was a penalty to do without it.

With 3e, more likely rolled stats would provide reasonable bonuses.  Of course, if one transitioned with the assumption the stats should stay the same, with higher bonuses coming with that, you'd get a different result.  We certainly didn't.  You could also have a slate of 16/14/14/14/8/8 if you're prepared to dump two stats to get that 16.  What constitutes "competent" depends on your comparables.   Note, also, that I am suggesting a competent fighter who is also tricked out for skills and interaction.  You can't have everything.



pemerton said:


> Research. Plus looting ancient Suel archives.




For research to succeed, the answers have to be out there.  And are we the only characters ever to have looted ancient archives?  What a coincidence that every one of our PC groups finds exactly the same spell that no one else has ever come across!



pemerton said:


> Sure. The problem with this in a system of asymmetric balance (daily vs at will abilities) is that the daily-ability PCs can nova, and be comparatively more powerful.




Unquestionably.  That suggests, to me at least, a variety of challenges to allow each type of character his chance to shine.



Alzrius said:


> Secondly, please stop accusing me of making accusations just because I pointed out a flaw in someone else's logic. I'm simply stating that it's difficult to sympathize with people who say that the game has an inherent problem that's created entirely by their play-style.
> 
> If you want to go all-in, you have to take _everything_ into account that's set on Greyhawk. Not just it's 2E supplements with the world logo on the cover (or lack thereof). Greyhawk-material can be found in generic 2E adventures and sourcebooks such as _Die Vecna Die!_, _TSR Jam 1999_, _Reverse Dungeon_, _Guide to Hell_, _Bastion of Faith_, etc. Plus it had fairly intense development across three adventure paths in the pages of _Dungeon_ during the 3E era - The Shackled City, The Age of Worms, and The Savage Tide - plus a number of smaller adventures and articles. That's without even getting into the _Dragon_ materials (or _Polyhedron_, or the short-lived _Living Greyhawk Journal_).
> 
> Many, if not most, of these sources had high-level characters.




Perhaps a better test is the proportion of characters at various levels.  If we have, say, 20 published Greyhawk characters and 200 published FR characters, how many of each pool are L12+, say?  If there are 10 Greyhawk characters and 75 FR characters, Greyhawk seems proportionately to have more high level characters.  The more published for each setting, the greater the numbers we should have at all levels, if the spread is equal in both settings.



Alzrius said:


> I threw the "similar times" qualifier in there because products released at similar times are more likely to reflect the same design philosophy, as a general rule (and, ideally, to prevent cross-edition comparison of specific products, since that can have some degree of impact).




Especially when one considers 3e was designed to make attaining those high levels in a shorter timeframe more practical!


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Perhaps a better test is the proportion of characters at various levels.  If we have, say, 20 published Greyhawk characters and 200 published FR characters, how many of each pool are L12+, say?  If there are 10 Greyhawk characters and 75 FR characters, Greyhawk seems proportionately to have more high level characters.  The more published for each setting, the greater the numbers we should have at all levels, if the spread is equal in both settings.




I like this idea, but foresee two problems.

The first is that since the characters chosen wouldn't be random, the process would be suspect based on who is being compared. The only way to avoid that would be to compare _every_ character for each setting when making a ratio.

Secondly, 3E and 4E had no demihuman level limits, and multiclassing rules that were very different from 1E and 2E. So a straightforward comparison of character levels across that particular divide could get tricky.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 27, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I like this idea, but foresee two problems.
> 
> The first is that since the characters chosen wouldn't be random, the process would be suspect based on who is being compared. The only way to avoid that would be to compare _every_ character for each setting when making a ratio.




That would be ideal.  If you only have three books from one and 17 from the other, the ratios would be more valid than "there are only 6 characters above L15 in the first setting, and 12 in the second" when that's 2 per book in the first and less than one per book in the second.



Alzrius said:


> Secondly, 3E and 4E had no demihuman level limits, and multiclassing rules that were very different from 1E and 2E. So a straightforward comparison of character levels across that particular divide could get tricky.




I think you absolutely have to divide between the editions - 3e was intended to allow, IIRC, regular weekly play to advance a character to 20th level in a year.  2e?  You'll be a lot longer than a year!


----------



## Tuft (Jun 27, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> The "conscript a militia" idea from up thread is interesting as a mundane summon "spell". A comparable "hue and cry" ability could enable a character to call upon joe public to grab the villain attempting to make his get away--a literal "hold person" if you will. Clearly, both of these skills/feats/whatever only work in suitable (urban) environments with a population that is at worst neutral to the character. Then again, even in an ostensibly hostile environment, the "general public" may not realise the person running away is actually on "their side" rather than the authoritative person demanding they be stopped...




So, what happens when a person who has *not* purchased that feat calls out "Stop Thief!" in a crowded street?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Secondly, please stop accusing me of making accusations just because I pointed out a flaw in someone else's logic.



In two posts not very far upthread - posts 193 and 205 - you accused me of being disingenuous. That is not "pointing out flaws in my logic". That is accusing me of "a lack of candour" ie of lying, or otherwise deceiving or setting out to mislead.

If you're now retracting, thank you.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 28, 2013)

pemerton said:


> In two posts not very far upthread - posts 193 and 205 - you accused me of being disingenuous. That is not "pointing out flaws in my logic". That is accusing me of "a lack of candour" ie of lying, or otherwise deceiving or setting out to mislead.




You're incorrect on multiple points, here.

First, my previous statements were just that: statements. They weren't directed at you personally, but at the points you were presenting. To say that an argument is "disingenuous" is - as you noted previously, but mysteriously seem to have forgotten - to say that it is "insincere." Since sincerity means "genuine" or "real," that's simply another way of saying that the argument you're presenting is not valid. Since the essence of having a debate is pointing out that someone else's point does not hold to be true (unlike your own), I'm honestly not sure what you're complaining about.

In other words, I'm saying your point lacks validity (e.g. "truth") as a quality. How you're seeing that as a personal attack is beyond me.

Also, post 205 doesn't have me saying anything about you being disingenuous, per se; rather, it's me suggesting that you're wrong to dismiss other people who use that term.



> _If you're now retracting, thank you._




I'm not. If, however, you're now saying you misunderstood my previous statements, and so can stop accusing me of making personal accusations, then I'll thank you in turn.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> There are strategic methods for increasing narrative options for player characters. These involve immersing the PCs in the machinations of the campaign world.



My own experience is that, under classic D&D paradigms, it is typically easier for players of casters to get into this ahead of players of non-casters: in part because the players of casters have better resources for doing this (via their spells) - better in terms of both effectiveness and reliability - and in part because caster PCs tend to have better stats for this sort of stuff (esp mental rather than physical stats).

I don't know how Adventurer, Conquerer, King, or Pathfinder via Kingmaker (?) AP and Ultimate Campaign, handle this. Do they offer solutions to the asymmetry I've pointed to?



Mike Eagling said:


> For me, D&D is cause and effect. I'm not interested in players negotiating or bidding for the opportunity to retcon the environment.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> However, taking my cue from the 1e AD&D assassination rules, I think it's entirely feasible for a thief/rogue to devote some portion of in-fiction time to infiltrate an organisation ahead of time. Think Lando Calrissian at Jabba's palace. This is where the "Surprise! It's me!" feat works, primarily because it's a strategic campaign process.



I understand each of these passage separately, but am not sure how you reconcile them. The "Surprise! It's me!" feat seems to involve a degree of retconning, and so I would have expected you to reject it to (but am happy that you don't!). Can you say more about how it fits with your broader "cause and effect" preference?



Mike Eagling said:


> Neither am I particularly interested in abstractly resolving opportunities for role playing encounters like infiltration in the short term.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The "conscript a militia" idea from up thread is interesting as a mundane summon "spell". A comparable "hue and cry" ability could enable a character to call upon joe public to grab the villain attempting to make his get away



Similar to above - I'd be interested to hear more about where, for you, the acceptable limits of abstraction lie.



Tuft said:


> So, what happens when a person who has *not* purchased that feat calls out "Stop Thief!" in a crowded street?



Fair question.

For me, the comparison needs to be between (say) casting a Passwall spell and pulling out your trusty pick and crowbar; or (say) casting a Hold Monster spell and wrestling the dragon to the ground bare-handed. That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.

There are at least three ways, within D&D action resolution, that I can think of to make things easier: (1) less expensive in the action economy; (2) costs less gp; (3) requires an easier die roll (or perhaps none at all).

Note that expense in the action economy is only loosely connected to time in the fiction - I'm thinking of (say) the exploration action economy that WotC is developing for Next. An example of (2) and (3) interacting from classic D&D is the scattering of food or treasure during evasion to increase your chance of success: a PC with a superior evasion ability would be able to get those sorts of bonuses without having to scatter coins.

At the tactical level of resolution, an ability in 4e that the fighter PC in my group has and uses all the time is Mighty Sprint (an encounter skill power): requires training in Athletics (so in practice is available to fighters or rangers rather than clerics or wizards), grants +5 to Athletics checks during a move action (so makes the dice rolls easier), and permits +4 to movement for one move action and ignoring difficult terrain (so improves action economy). That ability doesn't stop any other PC trying to run, climb or jump but it gives the fighter PC a clear advantage in that domain.

Until we start to see the mechanics for social interaction, evasion, etc I can't try to spell out the "Stop, thief!" ability in any detail - but I hope what I've said makes sense of how we could go about that task.



Mike Eagling said:


> Long distance travel can be handled in an equally mundane fashion. A ranger or similarly skilled character should be able to travel great distances whilst avoiding or evading encounters. Arguably the time required to do this should be proportional to the number of travelling companions--even a large group of people can likely avoid any problems provided they don't mind taking long detours or remaining hidden for extended periods. The "anti-magic" camouflage skill is an interesting idea. I was reminded of the scene in LotR when the Fellowship evade Saruman's crebain or the Nazgul in the Dead Marshes.



I'm glad you thought of those LotR scenes - I had them in mind too!


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 28, 2013)

Tuft said:


> So, what happens when a person who has *not* purchased that feat calls out "Stop Thief!" in a crowded street?




To take the conscription idea, which was mentioned somewhere upthread, it was suggested that this would normally be role-played out. I'd assume that would include some kind of diplomacy or intimidate roll so a "Conscript Militia" feat would presumably provide a bonus to that roll. The "Hue and Cry" feat would likely work in a similar way.



pemerton said:


> My own experience is that, under classic D&D paradigms, it is typically easier for players of casters to get into this ahead of players of non-casters: in part because the players of casters have better resources for doing this (via their spells) - better in terms of both effectiveness and reliability - and in part because caster PCs tend to have better stats for this sort of stuff (esp mental rather than physical stats).




Well, we're on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the disparity between casters and non-casters and I'm loath to enter the discussion in any depth in an attempt to keep the discussion on topic. Suffice it to say that in my experience of 1e AD&D I have found opportunities for non-casters to influence the world they inhabit 



pemerton said:


> I don't know how Adventurer, Conquerer, King, or Pathfinder via Kingmaker (?) AP and Ultimate Campaign, handle this. Do they offer solutions to the asymmetry I've pointed to?




I've not played ACKS but picked up the PDF a few months ago out of interest. It's essentially BECMI with an assumed endgame similar to 1e's campaign infrastructure--i.e. stronghold building for fighters, magical research for wizards, etc. I'm unfamiliar with BECMI (I came in at B/X then moved to AD&D) so I don't know how ACKS compares in this respect.

(As an aside, ACKS has a permanent wounds system you may appreciate.)

The Kingmaker AP does something similar for Pathfinder. It introduces rules for founding, ruling, and defending kingdoms. These are revised and expanded upon in Ultimate Campaigns. I'm still waiting for my copy of UC to ship so don't know the extent of this revision.

I didn't think either ACKS or Kingmaker did anything particularly ground-breaking compared to AD&D so, from your perspective, they're probably just as unbalanced?



pemerton said:


> I understand each of these passage separately, but am not sure how you reconcile them.
> The "Surprise! It's me!" feat seems to involve a degree of retconning, and so I would have expected you to reject it to (but am happy that you don't!). Can you say more about how it fits with your broader "cause and effect" preference?




As originally presented the "Surprise! It's me!" feat seemed to imply that the rogue could invoke this feat and suddenly become disguised as someone else. IIRC they would move from being with the party in the king's hall to suddenly being one of the serving wenches, or something. The rationale seemed to be along the lines of "Actually, I'm not with the party after all, I snuck off earlier and disguised myself. I'm now stood behind the king with a plate of lobsters and a knife to his back". Perhaps that's a misinterpretation but it's the impression I took away.

Assuming this is what was meant this utterly defies my interpretation of how D&D works. I'm all for a rogue slipping away from the party (stealth), donning a disguise (disguise) and ending up in the same place (bluff), but deciding they did this after the fact is anathema to me. Cause and effect. Rogues can't travel back in time, so their players can't decide they'd rather have done something else after the fact either.

However, assume the party plan to enter the king's hall for some reason. For the sake of argument they plan to rescue their comrades. There's nothing to stop the rogue going on ahead to infiltrate the palace, a la Lando Calrissian. I guess I don't really view it as a feat. Infiltration is/should be a skill much the same as assassination in 1e AD&D. It's perhaps akin to craft or profession in 3.x terms, i.e. an action of long duration. Does  that make sense?



pemerton said:


> Similar to above - I'd be interested to hear more about where, for you, the acceptable limits of abstraction lie.




Well, hopefully the above explains the distinction i make between infiltration in the short and long term.

I view the conscription and hue & cry ideas as extensions to diplomacy/intimidate/leadership/etc. They have limited application--they can't magic people into existence; they only really make sense in a populated environment. I guess I view these as feats that enhance leadership, granting some kind of DC bonus.



pemerton said:


> That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.




Yeah, like that


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 28, 2013)

pemerton said:


> For me, the comparison needs to be between (say) casting a Passwall spell and pulling out your trusty pick and crowbar; or (say) casting a Hold Monster spell and wrestling the dragon to the ground bare-handed. That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.




The difference between if I yell "Stop" and if a cop yells "Stop." One is going to have a greater impact, presumably because the cop is both dressed as a cop and has learned to yell "stop" more effectively.

If the ability was done as a saving throw with a mechanic that allowed either for a willing fail on the part of the targets (the crowd is already on your side) would make more sense to be than a skill check. It also allows characters from classes that may be weak on the correct skill ability score to still be effective with the ability. But it really does depend on how the mechanics work in general. 

Either way though, it's on the right track.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> As originally presented the "Surprise! It's me!" feat seemed to imply that the rogue could invoke this feat and suddenly become disguised as someone else. IIRC they would move from being with the party in the king's hall to suddenly being one of the serving wenches, or something. The rationale seemed to be along the lines of "Actually, I'm not with the party after all, I snuck off earlier and disguised myself. I'm now stood behind the king with a plate of lobsters and a knife to his back". Perhaps that's a misinterpretation but it's the impression I took away.
> 
> Assuming this is what was meant this utterly defies my interpretation of how D&D works. I'm all for a rogue slipping away from the party (stealth), donning a disguise (disguise) and ending up in the same place (bluff), but deciding they did this after the fact is anathema to me. Cause and effect. Rogues can't travel back in time, so their players can't decide they'd rather have done something else after the fact either.
> 
> However, assume the party plan to enter the king's hall for some reason. For the sake of argument they plan to rescue their comrades. There's nothing to stop the rogue going on ahead to infiltrate the palace, a la Lando Calrissian. I guess I don't really view it as a feat. Infiltration is/should be a skill much the same as assassination in 1e AD&D. It's perhaps akin to craft or profession in 3.x terms, i.e. an action of long duration.



Here's what I think is by your standards a middle-path. How would this work for you?

The party agree they are going to enter the king's hall. At that point, the player of the thief announces that his/her PC is going to inflitrate.

The rest of the party enter the hall and are having an audience with the king. A fight breaks out. At that point, the player of the thief gets to go "Surprise! It's me!" and declare that (say) one of the king's houseguards is really the thief in disguise.

In this version, there's no "time travel". Strictly speaking there's no retconning either - nothing up to date has shown that the houseguard is _not_ the thief. What there is is filling in of backstory after the event. So at the metagame level the player gets to optimise the thief's choice of who to disguise as, by making sure it's someone relevant to how things play out.

Would that be acceptable to you?

EDIT: Also, thanks for the reply on ACK/KM/UC - can't XP again at this time.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 28, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Rogues can't travel back in time, so their players can't decide they'd rather have done something else after the fact either.




The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions *are not* character actions. The rest is narrative justification (" I cast a spell", "I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking", "I realized that the kings guard owed me a huge favor and I called it in")

I know this is a play-style issue, but its a play-style issue


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 28, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Here's what I think is by your standards a middle-path. How would this work for you?
> 
> The party agree they are going to enter the king's hall. At that point, the player of the thief announces that his/her PC is going to inflitrate.
> 
> ...




Consider the opening sequence of "True Lies". That could be construed as Infiltration. Alternatively, it could be achieved as a sequence of Disguise, (Swim), Stealth, and Bluff rolls. As a GM I'd allow Arnie to use whichever skill(s) were the most favourable. In the interests of the story I want him to get in. The fun starts when he tries to get out..!

Returning to our adventurers, the only reluctance I would have is if Infiltration allowed the rogue to pick any time, place or character with which to perform their big reveal. It would depend greatly upon the circumstances and, primarily, upon the plan they had concocted. 

Assuming a world without sophisticated comms there's a big grey area regarding in-character knowledge. However, the plan would not need to be any more detailed than "I infiltrate the palace, disguise myself as a guard, and wait for you in the great hall". Provided the rest of the party stuck to the plan and got to the hall the rogue would be there when the fight kicked off.

If the party deviated from the plan and the fight kicked off in the courtyard there would be a delay between the fight kicking off, the rogue learning of this, and (assuming it was his intent) his arrival at the courtyard. Generally speaking this delay would be just long enough for him to make a dramatic entrance into the fray...


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions *are not* character actions. The rest is narrative justification



I agree, but I think we have to recognise that for a lot of players it seems that that sort of separation of character from player action is not desirable. Hence my attempt at a "middle" way in post 226, to see what [MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION] thinks of it.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 28, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions *are not* character actions. The rest is narrative justification (" I cast a spell", "I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking", "I realized that the kings guard owed me a huge favor and I called it in")
> 
> I know this is a play-style issue, but its a play-style issue




This _is_ a play-style issue, which is why I disagree with it. If it works for you: great. But it doesn't work for me.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 28, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I agree, but I think we have to recognise that for a lot of players it seems that that sort of separation of character from player action is not desirable.




Oh I agree, plenty of players don't like retcon in this way, and I like your suggestion to [MENTION=7507]mike[/MENTION]. 

To be honest, in most of my games in the last 5 years we had no idea where the rogue was most of the time. In a different campaign a player actually played a pair of brothers, of which only one of who was around the party at any time (the idea was nicked from The Prestige I believe)


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 28, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> This is a play-style issue, which is why I disagree with it. If it works for you: great. But it doesn't work for me.




I completely understand, and its darn difficult to create situations like these without "magic", flashbacks and flash forwards, or very creative playing... All of which I have no objection too .

Of course, it can also be run as a split party and role/roll play the whole scenario that leads to "Surprise!It's me"


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 28, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> The Rogue doesn't travel back in time, the player decides a narrative that has happened; no different from the magic-user player. The key here is player actions *are not* character actions. The rest is narrative justification (" I cast a spell", "I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking", "I realized that the kings guard owed me a huge favor and I called it in")




Actually, I just realised this deserves some more attention!

You say "the player decides a narrative that has happened". This is the difference, apparently, in our play styles.

For me, in D&D (other games may be different), players don't decide a narrative that _has_ happened, they decide the narrative that _is happening_.

"I cast a spell" results in a spell being cast.

"I slipped off earlier when someone wasn't looking" well, no, you didn't.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 28, 2013)

Well there is definitely a galloping gourmet moment where we pull a " and here is one i prepared earlier" ...

But the action is "I appear behind the king, dagger to his back, disguised as the page " as the narrative is happening; the justification is i slipped off earlier; the game mechanic I'm using a slot/token/ability that allows me to do it.

For me, no different that "I cast a magic missile at the darkness" ; justification is a spell I prepared earlier ; game mechanic I use a spell slot/charge etc to pay for the narrative action.

And I know this is my preferred style


----------



## Balesir (Jun 28, 2013)

A few thoughts have occured to me following the recent discussion that I think tie back to the original thread topic (hooray!)

It seems to me that, with the traditional D&D aesthetic, the problem facing "mundane" characters is what I'll call, for want of a better term, "relevant event density". I'll try to explain it, but please bear with me as it's a concept forming in my mind as I type...

Take the infiltration scenario as an example. Success at the task - which I take to be "get into a role in the castle that will get you close to the king at the critical time" - requires a plethora of steps. Many of them are semi-stochastic (they rely on luck, but any one of a range of potantial lucky breaks will do) and many are information-based (discovering the social hierarchies and webs of influence among the castle staff). As a result, the task requires a very large number of discrete steps, some of which may be "try once only - fail = total failure" while others are "get multiple tries, each try uses time and carries a small risk of total failure".

Running a solo sequence with the rogue player may be something that some groups will be happy to do; some may even think of this as an ideal roleplaying style. But, for other groups, this just leaves several players excluded and bored, so the rogue simply never gets to do the "solo infiltration" schtick*.

Looking at what the issue is, here, though, it seems to me to be tied to the number of discrete actions/events required, since it is these, not the amount of elapsed "game time" that determines how much real time it takes to achieve something in the game. Compare the rogues extended sequence of sneaking, listening, disguising, bluffing and so on with the spellcaster's "I cast spell Y". There are two obvious ways to combat this:

1) Make the spellcasters take more actions to cast a spell. Maybe a spell has several stages and sections, each of which needs to be completed, in order to cast it. Maybe the magical currents that eddy and flow around the game world need to be aligned just right (possibly requiring casting from just such-and-such a position) for the spell to work. Or...

2) Make it so that convoluted sequences of "mundane" action can be specified and adjudicated in just one step, just as spellcasting (in D&D) can be.

Here is a sketch of what (2) might look like:

- The acting character formulates a plan, stating what they intend to achieve and the steps they intend to take to achieve it.

- The game system lays out, for each of several "difficulties" of task, a roll or sequence of rolls or requirements needed for the task (e.g. a task might require a DC XX roll, or Y DC ZZ rolls with Y being reduced for training in relevant skills, minimum movement rates, vision abilities (like LLV) and so on).

- The DM decides what the difficulty is, and the player(s) between them (including the DM) decide what skills/attributes may apply. Each skill/attribute might raise the DC by an average amount, but the acting player doesn't have to accept skills or attributes the character is poor in. For example, in the infiltration example, the system might look like this:

i) The task is difficult and has DC 18.

ii) A background including disguise and a disguise kit each reduce the DC by 2.

iii) Stealth (DEX), bluff (CHA), perception (WIS) and streetwise (WIS) are all relevant and can be used to boost the roll, but each one used increases the DC by 2 (by making the plan more complex - although the the rule system or the DM might rule bluff and streetwise mandatory for this plan).

iv) The character has good DEX and CHA, but poor WIS, so the player decides on a plan using stealth, bluff and streetwise (mandatory).

v) Optional skills/attributes might add effects to the outcome, perhaps. For example, using perception might add one or more situational pieces of information to a successful outcome (e.g. the rogue gets into position, and also knows that several extra guards are behind _that_ door), thus making their use attractive even if they increase the DC somewhat.

The negotiation/decision over the precise structure of the test should really not be too complex; the system for formulating the trial should therefore be quite specific and precise. Maybe, as someone else suggested, the mechanism should work via saving throws, rather than "success rolls", but it makes little real difference in the end. Basically, the idea is to make "mundane" plans of any sort a "one shot deal", similar to spells, rather than a "well, we could go off and solo that for half an hour..."


* The way that infiltration, etc. is excluded/discouraged might be problematic (I have known DMs make rogues make multiple "succeed or get caught" skill checks for this sort of thing, which just makes it so difficult as to be useless), but I regard that as a separate and not neccessarily related problem.


----------



## chaochou (Jun 28, 2013)

Here are a couple of moves from Dungeon World:

Through Death's Eyes (Fighter)
When you _go into battle_, roll + WIS. On a 10+ name someone who will live and someone who will die. On a 7-9 name someone who will live _or_ someone who will die. Name only NPCs, not player characters. The GM will make it happen if even remotely possible. On a 6- you forsee your own death and take -1 ongoing for the battle.

Wealth and Taste (Thief)
When you _make a show of flashing around your most valuable possession_, choose someone present. They will do anything they can to obtain your item or one like it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 28, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> You're incorrect on multiple points, here.
> 
> First, my previous statements were just that: statements. They weren't directed at you personally, but at the points you were presenting. To say that an argument is "disingenuous" is - as you noted previously, but mysteriously seem to have forgotten - to say that it is "insincere." Since sincerity means "genuine" or "real," that's simply another way of saying that the argument you're presenting is not valid.




Quick question: Is English your first language?  Because there are a lot of subtle distinctions in English that are not obvious - and you might have tangled yourself up in one of those.  If we look at the Meriam Webster, insincere is another way of saying hypocritical.  Sincere on the other hand has, as a first definition, honest.  

Being sincere is not about whether the statement is actually true.  It is about whether someone genuinely believes the statement they are making.  If someone genuinely believes that the earth is flat then they are being sincere when they say the earth is flat _despite the fact that it is not true._    If someone on the other hand believes that the earth is flat and claims that it is round because they will be given money for that _that is insincere - _it is dishonest and the opposite of what they believe.  This is still true despite the fact that the earth is not flat.

(Note: According to The American Heritage Dictionary there is some confusion about the meaning of disingenuous and the word may be shifting although your claimed usage is not in line with any standard possibility - but once you accept insincere as an accurate summary you are removing all doubt.)



> Since the essence of having a debate is pointing out that someone else's point does not hold to be true (unlike your own), I'm honestly not sure what you're complaining about.




That you are accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of _not believing what he is saying._  Which is entirely different from making a mistake.



> In other words, I'm saying your point lacks validity (e.g. "truth") as a quality. How you're seeing that as a personal attack is beyond me.




That insincere doesn't mean that and disingenuous doesn't mean that.  Both mean that the person that is being accused of such _doesn't believe what they are saying._  There is a huge distinction between lying (someone knows something to be false and is making things up anyway) and mistaken (someone believes something to be true that isn't).  You are not, as you think, accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of being mistaken.  You are accusing him of knowingly lying.  And accusing someone of knowingly lying is a personal attack.



> I'm not. If, however, you're now saying you misunderstood my previous statements, and so can stop accusing me of making personal accusations, then I'll thank you in turn.




If you are accusing him of being insincere or disingenuous then either you are accusing him of knowingly lying, in which case you are making a personal attack, or you are not saying what you think you are saying, in which case you owe him an apology.  Which is it?


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 28, 2013)

I think for the "Surprise, It's Me" ability we're looking for a mechanic that is currently not in the game. I'm trying to think of a wizard spell that might do something like it, but I'm not coming up with anything.

The mechanic is one that summarizes individual play when a party member leaves the group. There are plenty of times when this particular mechanic could be used and I think it would primarily be used by Rogue/Thief characters, who are the ones who more often than other characters, disappears to either scout, infiltrate, or investigate, but it could apply to any character who temporarily leaves the group to engage in some other activity (a ranger who scouts ahead, a cleric who leaves to visit the church, etc).

Ability
State Intention (I'm going to infiltrate the castle and take the place of a server to appear behind the king)
Roll Dice (Mechanic)
Result (you appear in your desired location, you appear near your desired location, you appear in a prison cell, you appear near your desired location but everyone knows it's you, etc)

I think the dice roll happens not at the beginning of the action, but when the party member returns to the rest of the party. If the rogue goes to scout ahead, he doesn't roll the dice to determine success until he would normally return to the group. 

Using existing mechanics of D&D the mechanic would need to be a Skill Check (Which Check) or a Saving Throw (Who Makes It) or Automatic (Are there preexisting conditions that determine success).


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 28, 2013)

@*Balesir* Something like 1e combat rounds; abstract time interval of conflict resolution into one roll. My guess is that while 1e combat rounds gets a pass due to legacy (which is odd considering how central the combat round is to play), your abstract conflict resolution system (although it sounds compelling and functional) would not get the same pass from the same crowd.

Magic as conduit for outrageous expansion of locus of control for spellcasters (while forbidding mechanics that work to expand mundane players', and their characters', locus of control) is the issue here. "Because magic" allows the players of spellcasters to deploy resources and dictate the fiction from Director Stance or Author Stance by proxy of Author Stance due to this expansion of locus control. We're into the same positions as ever (and in a surreal, stepford fashion). One side of the issue demands 1 or more of the below 3:
- As much serial accounting for the mundane passage of time (and its knock-on effects) as possible rather than hard (or gross if you prefer it) abstraction of time and its effects.

- As much game mechanics as physics/process simulator as possible and all of the granular interactions that come with that. 

- 1st person, Actor Stance as the only allowable player perspective at the table; eg no dictating any of the fiction external to the precise, well-accounted-for locus of control of your character (no Director or Author stance).

Fighter says: "I can chop down that tree or climb it."

Magic Guy says: "What tree?" or "I am that tree" or "I just leapt that tree in a single bound and am hovering above it." All "because magic."

Those two guys cannot dream of competing, or being relevant with respect to one another, in the arena of non-combat, conflict resolution if the 3 above must be observed with perfect fealty. You'd have a stronger argument if you asserted that mail courtiers in the 1700s could be a relevant, money-making enterprise while competing with modern day UPS or Fedex. 

The cannot...not in a High Magic, High Fantasy system such as D&D where resource scheduling, and inherent balance, is all over the map (pre 4e).  You can fully contrive situations to impose _sharing _the spotlight but the two parties won't be _sharing _in a way the characters will and means. They'll be _sharing _due to GM-forced, contrived situations that either bind spellcasters' unbeleivably disproportionate locus of control or make the task not worth the spellcaster player's time/effort to deploy a spell because there is absolutely no way for those two parties to dictate outcomes with the same breadth and potency...that is within the strictures of the above.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 28, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> Quick question: Is English your first language?  Because there are a lot of subtle distinctions in English that are not obvious - and you might have tangled yourself up in one of those.  If we look at the Meriam Webster, insincere is another way of saying hypocritical.  Sincere on the other hand has, as a first definition, honest.




Quick question in return: are you familiar with the concept of irony? I ask because you're displaying it here in your lack of command of the English language. 

For one thing, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which you failed to cite. If you check its definition of disingenuous (Second Edition, volume four, page 784), you'll find that it doesn't break it down into numerical listings (dispelling the notion that one can somehow "rank" the definitions of this word), noting that not only does it list "insincere" as part of the definition, but that it can be applied to "persons *and their actions*." Emphasis mine here.

Now, if we look at "sincere" itself (OED 2nd edition, volume fifteen, page 508), we'll see that it does have definitions broken down by numbers, and that 1b is "true, veracious; *correct*, exact." Emphasis mine again.

In other words, before you question someone else's command of a language, make sure you're up on your own. 



> _Being sincere is not about whether the statement is actually true.  It is about whether someone genuinely believes the statement they are making._




Already proven false; see above.



> _If someone genuinely believes that the earth is flat then they are being sincere when they say the earth is flat despite the fact that it is not true.    If someone on the other hand believes that the earth is flat and claims that it is round because they will be given money for that that is insincere - it is dishonest and the opposite of what they believe.  This is still true despite the fact that the earth is not flat._




One can judge the sincerity of a claim in and of itself, since as I've already demonstrated, sincerity can be in reference to its correctness. 



> _(Note: According to The American Heritage Dictionary there is some confusion about the meaning of disingenuous and the word may be shifting although your claimed usage is not in line with any standard possibility - but once you accept insincere as an accurate summary you are removing all doubt._




Demonstrably false, unless you don't think that the OED is "any standard" of English.



> _That you are accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of not believing what he is saying.  Which is entirely different from making a mistake._




Again, demonstrably false.



> _That insincere doesn't mean that and disingenuous doesn't mean that.  Both mean that the person that is being accused of such doesn't believe what they are saying.  There is a huge distinction between lying (someone knows something to be false and is making things up anyway) and mistaken (someone believes something to be true that isn't).  You are not, as you think, accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of being mistaken.  You are accusing him of knowingly lying.  And accusing someone of knowingly lying is a personal attack._




As I've already demonstrated multiple times, I never once accused pemerton of lying - a statement can be disingenuous because it lacks sincerity, which means that it lacks truth, as a quality of the statement itself. For you to suggest otherwise means that you are, at best, tragically mistaken. At worst, it means that you're deliberately misinterpreting my previous statements in order to manufacture outrage over a non-existent accusation.

I will, however, do you the benefit of presuming that you're simply misguided, rather than having ill intent. I won't even insist that you apologize, which is a good deal more gracious than you've been thus far.



> _If you are accusing him of being insincere or disingenuous then either you are accusing him of knowingly lying, in which case you are making a personal attack, or you are not saying what you think you are saying, in which case you owe him an apology.  Which is it?_




Neither, as I've clearly shown. Hopefully, you've learned from your mistakes here, and can let this sordid tangent go.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 28, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> <snip>
> 
> The cannot...not in a High Magic, High Fantasy system such as D&D where resource scheduling, and inherent balance, is all over the map (pre 4e).  You can fully contrive situations to impose _sharing _the spotlight but the two parties won't be _sharing _in a way the characters will and means. They'll be _sharing _due to GM-forced, contrived situations that either bind spellcasters' unbeleivably disproportionate locus of control or make the task not worth the spellcaster player's time/effort to deploy a spell because there is absolutely no way for those two parties to dictate outcomes with the same breadth and potency...that is within the strictures of the above.




You can, but it does involve difficulty.


The problem is as you've identified one of the continuum  Mundane <--------------------------------------------------------------------> Fantastical and where PC action can fall based on the game's overarching conception of what the character can affect.

There are three ways to fight it.


 Define different masks where actions may fall on the continuum, for example, imagine defining effects in the game world according to 24 positions on the continuum and assigning each class 8 full effect, 8 partial effect, and 8 no effect points.  Each class has a type of situation is it best in, but there is a large overlap in the middle.  This is a game design solution and difficult to overlay on a game's existing preconceptions.


```
M<-------------------->F
FFFFFFFFFffffffff--------
rrRRRRRRRRrrrrrr--------
ccccCCCCCCCCcccc--------
----wwwwWWWWWWWWwwww----
```

 Provide access to more fantastical elements outside the base PC definition for the players to take advantage of -- magic items, organisations, fantastical locales.  The adventure is on a cloud castle how do the PCs get there?  The Wizard can fly them up or the Rogue could plant his magic beans and climb the resulting beanstalk...  This is a DM controlled solution as he has to provide the in-game resources.  The game system can help or hinder this solution by making the resources fungible -- I struggled with this under 3.5 because the players sold the miscellaneous magic items in favour of augmenting their best scores and the game gave very high intrinsic value to fantastical ability items compared with "better number" items.
 Extend the expected "mundane" abilities into the fantastical, in effect playing a more mythic campaign.  This is a table solution and may end up falling into game design as well depending on how far you extend.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 28, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My own experience is that, under classic D&D paradigms, it is typically easier for players of casters to get into this ahead of players of non-casters: in part because the players of casters have better resources for doing this (via their spells) - better in terms of both effectiveness and reliability - and in part because caster PCs tend to have better stats for this sort of stuff (esp mental rather than physical stats).




So, what, first you want to invest all of your character resources in being a big, huking brute, sacrificing wit, charm and insight to do so.  Then you want to be a forceful, respected leader in the campaign world.  These seem inconsistent to me.  I would expect that the ability to influence people would  be largely CHA-based.  About the only reasonable exception I perceive would be intimiation-based interaction, an arena the game has decided to base on CHA (which I think is also a reasonable approach).

Leadership does not presently require high CHA to take, although it is (and should be) influenced by CHA.  But Leadership's primary function seems to be that Cohort, and the addition of Cohorts is not welcome in a lot of groups.  Now, what about a second feat, designed to provide larger numbers of low level, low power followers, and not provide cohorts?  This would then be the feat one would take to build, say, a Mage College, a private army, a thieves' guild (or a merchant's guilt, for that matter) or a religious congregation?  Perhaps we simply move the Followers down, say, 6 spaces on the chart ( so Leadership Level 4 attracts 5 L1 followers - that's average CHA at the earliest point you can take the feat) and the Cohort 4 lines up 4 levels (only at 6th do you get a cohort - so you need an above average CHA for this at L4, and even then you get a low level cohort).  

Let's also add that the Cohort is not an adventuring companion, but a sub-leader.  A junior officer, sergeant at arms, college registrar or what have you - your right hand man, certainly, but not in adventuring, in your private influence.

Ultimately, the game is about choices.  If you choose to dedicate all your character resources to being the biggest, toughest, meanest, most powerful monster killer possible, then that is where you chose to focus, and that is the area where you will be able to succeed.  If you are not prepared to dedicate any resources to any other activity, then you should not be surprised that you are not good at those activities, and may have to rely on your teammates when the challenges enter those arenas.

Now, maybe I'm a Mean Old GM, but I don't see the wizard, say, having such huge advantages in this arena.  He can dump CHA, just like the fighter, without impairing his combat functionality (that Sorcerer has an advantage here).  He probably focuses his skills on Spellcraft, UMD and esoteric Knowledge, and has no interaction skills.  He can probably spare some skill points for interaction skills (an advantage not shared by the sorcerer), but they're still cross-class.

Sure, he can Charm someone.  At least in my games, a Charm Person spell is not "diplomacy".  A Fighter can threaten his life, or others he cares for.  A person aproached by a persuasive (or not so persuasive) request may accept, or may reject, based on the diplomacy results.  He's unlikely to be offended by the attempt.  But a Charm spell is not diplomacy.  First, you are casting a spell, a pretty obvious action.  If the target does save, don't expect the target's response to be anything positive.  If he does not, he is still not going to be happy when the enchantment wears off and his mind is no longer ensorcled.  Just like those extortion efforts by the fighter or rogue are unlikely to carry a long-term result of a friendly ally.

And let's assume you have, and can maintain, Charm on the Duke.  Do his existing allies suspect nothing?  Does the spellcaster lack a reputation for these abilities (whether deserved from prior history, or uneserved because "everyone knows" wizards do that sort of thing)?  Dispel Magic won't eliminate my successful efforts at diplomacy which have built a relationship of trust and friendship with the Duke, nor does Detect Magic raise cause for suspicion.  They're pretty effective against that Charmed Person.



pemerton said:


> For me, the comparison needs to be between (say) casting a Passwall spell and pulling out your trusty pick and crowbar; or (say) casting a Hold Monster spell and wrestling the dragon to the ground bare-handed. That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.
> 
> There are at least three ways, within D&D action resolution, that I can think of to make things easier: (1) less expensive in the action economy; (2) costs less gp; (3) requires an easier die roll (or perhaps none at all).




Investment in a feat is investment of character resources, so sure.  You can already Skill Focus your diplomacy, and Negotiator will add a further +2.  More feats, or feat chains, linked to skills and other noncombat activities would help, but again, this means redirecting resources from that "Hulking Brute" (or "Potent caster") structure to be good at something else.  For the Fighter, that means giving up some combat prowess for non-combat abilities.  That could include investing in INT and CHA (skill points and interaction skill bonuses) and having less STR/CON/DEX, directing skill points at interaction skills, selecting feats that enhance this aspect of the character, investing wealth in magic that enhances these, rather than combat abilities, etc.   But it means choosing to be a more effective Leader of Men at the cost of being a less effective one on one combatant.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 28, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Ultimately, the game is about choices.  If you choose to dedicate all your character resources to being the biggest, toughest, meanest, most powerful monster killer possible, then that is where you chose to focus, and that is the area where you will be able to succeed.  If you are not prepared to dedicate any resources to any other activity, then you should not be surprised that you are not good at those activities, and may have to rely on your teammates when the challenges enter those arenas.




The difference here is that the wizard at least has some unique class resources available to make up for a lack of CHA, while the Fighter has no unique class resources available. All things being equal, the Wizard is better simply because he has class resources.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 28, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> For one thing, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which you failed to cite.




English is a descriptive and not a prescriptive language.  The OED is considered more authoritative than most at getting history right.  It also contains more words than just about any other.  On the other hand the greater depth the full OED gives to words makes it in many cases less useful rather than more for establishing the normal meanings of terms.  On the other hand neither insincere nor disingenuous are obscure words and the M-W is (a) older than the OED, (b) highly respected and authoritative and (c) searchable so we can independently verify each others results.



> If you check its definition of disingenuous (Second Edition, volume four, page 784), you'll find that it doesn't break it down into numerical listings (dispelling the notion that one can somehow "rank" the definitions of this word), noting that it can be applied to "persons *and their actions*." Emphasis mine here.




Indeed.  You can act disingenuously.  A disingenuous action is one at which the motivation for the action is at odds with the overt form of the action.  A lot of flirting is disingenuous - it involves affecting a coyness or an arrogance that is at odds with the underlying person, and is intended to be seen as such.  Another form of a disingenuous act is when a politician inserts a rider into a bill not for the purpose of getting the rider passed, but for the purpose of sabotaging the bill.  Disingenuous acts are dishonest acts.  Highlighting those two words proves nothing other than that you've highlighted two words.



> Now, if we look at "sincere" itself (OED 2nd edition, volume 15, page 508), we'll see that it does have definitions broken down by numbers, and that 1b is "true, veracious; *correct*, exact." Emphasis mine again.




I'm aware of that meaning.  The only time I've seen it used was for translations of the bible in which there was no attempt to read the reader's own meaning into the case. 

I believe the full OED text to have been copied here - and shorter versions have been copied here and here. 

In other words the OED definition you are citing and as has been cited by Google books is:
*
1: Not falsified or perverted in any way:
*1a: of doctrine etc.: Genuine, pure
1b: true, veracious, correct, exact
1c: morally uncorrupted, uncontaminated.​
In order to claim definition 1b _you need to claim the definition 1 heading._  It's true, veracious, correct, and exact _in that it hasn't been falsified or perverted in any way._  And insincere using this definition of sincere means that it is untrue or false _because it has been falsified or perverted._

If I am right about the OED's actual text based on your selective quotation then either you are misusing the OED by ignoring the category heading or you are intentionally selectively quoting only the part of the OED that backs up your point.

I also notice you look at sincere rather than insincere - does the OED under the entry of "insincere" say that it means the same as not sincere?  Or does it say more than that?  Because you've jumped straight from disingenuous to sincere without going through insincere (which the M-W defines as "Not sincere; hypocritical" - and the way it is not sincere is the sort of way that implies hypocricy).



> Demonstrably false, unless you don't think that the OED is "any standard" of English.




Given that you haven't quoted the OED on the subject of Insincere at all, you haven't shown a thing.  You have only quoted sincere.  And insincere may be derived from sincere and by a literal meaning be not sincere - but words in English don't mean their literal meanings.  And given that you appear to have selectively quoted the OED without including the context (and a text without context is a pretext) I don't think my disagreement is with the OED.

The entire OED entry matters - as does the actual entry for the OED on the word insincere - an entry that was conspicuously absent in your reply.



> As I've already demonstrated multiple times, I never once accused pemerton of lying - a statement can be disingenuous because it lacks sincerity, which means that it lacks truth, as a quality of the statement itself.




Insincere in the M-W also points to hypocritical.  Both are needed if you are to use the M-W effectively.  But instead of bringing up the OED's description of Insincere you are instead using a secondary meaning of Sincere.  Which is a different word.  And the full OED passage you have taken out of context appears (if I am right) to demonstrate that it's truth in the sense of not being falsified or perverted.



> For you to suggest otherwise means that you are, at best, tragically mistaken. At worst, it means that you're deliberately misinterpreting my previous statements in order to manufacture outrage over a non-existent accusation.




At best it means that you are tragically mistaken out of the way your use of the English language will be taken by people of good faith.  And as you are giving offence to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] whether you mean to or not, and he has called you on this, that on its own should be enough to make you select language that will not give offence.  However your response has been to resort to subsidiary meanings in the dictionary to say that what you were saying was not offensive.  And when I pointed out what the dictionary said, your response involved some selective quoting, only quoting a little of the root word "disingenuous", entirely missing one of the important words (insincere) out, only partially quoting disingenuous, and seemingly only selectively quoting from one of the meanings of sincere in a way that ignores the overall meaning.

Anyway, thank you for giving me a distraction from worrying about my little sister's latest heart operation.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 28, 2013)

You guys.  Drop it, please.  Nobody's going to "win" anything here.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 28, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> English is a descriptive and not a prescriptive language.  The OED is considered more authoritative than most at getting history right.  It also contains more words than just about any other.  On the other hand the greater depth the full OED gives to words makes it in many cases less useful rather than more for establishing the normal meanings of terms.




You're already going off track here. Noting that the OED has good cause to be cited as the most authoritative dictionary is a matter of fact, but you veer wildly away from that with your last sentence, which is filled with personal opinions on the "usefulness" of defining "normal" meanings of words. This is the basis for the mistakes you make later on.



> _On the other hand neither insincere nor disingenuous are obscure words and the M-W is (a) older than the OED, (b) highly respected and authoritative and (c) searchable so we can independently verify each others results._




Their lack of obscurity is a tangential point that has no bearing on the wider discussion, making that a notation that adds nothing. Likewise for the searchability of one dictionary versus another, since it goes without saying that we're checking sources. Other than that, the relative age of a dictionary is meaningless, since that has nothing to do with its authority (hence why you listed that separately from "(b)"), and while the Merriam-Webster dictionary is certainly highly-respected, I suspect that if we were to rank the authority of the various English-language dictionaries, it would not surpass the OED.



> _Indeed.  You can act disingenuously.  A disingenuous action is one at which the motivation for the action is at odds with the overt form of the action._




Or, as I've amply demonstrated, it's an action wherein the act itself does not possess truth as an element, rather than being concerned with the motivation of the actor.



> _A lot of flirting is disingenuous - it involves affecting a coyness or an arrogance that is at odds with the underlying person, and is intended to be seen as such.  Another form of a disingenuous act is when a politician inserts a rider into a bill not for the purpose of getting the rider passed, but for the purpose of sabotaging the bill.  Disingenuous acts are dishonest acts.  Highlighting those two words proves nothing other than that you've highlighted two words._




Leaving aside the examples you've posted, highlighting those two words does indeed prove something - that there's a legitimate alternative method of understanding what I've been saying.



> _I'm aware of that meaning.  The only time I've seen it used was for translations of the bible in which there was no attempt to read the reader's own meaning into the case. _




In that case, I would recommend that you read more widely, as there's a reason why the OED includes that meaning with such prominence.



> _I believe the full OED text to have been copied here - and shorter versions have been copied here and here.
> 
> In other words the OED definition you are citing and as has been cited by Google books is:
> *
> ...




I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here, save for repeating the definition a few times - something that is not falsified or perverted means that it has no element of untruth to it. If something is untrue unto itself, rather than being untrue due to the motivations of the person saying/doing it, then it's still untrue.



> _If I am right about the OED's actual text based on your selective quotation then either you are misusing the OED by ignoring the category heading or you are intentionally selectively quoting only the part of the OED that backs up your point._




It's not correct to call that a selective quotation - I'm quoting the operative part of the definition for the purposes of this discussion. The category heading is not ignored because it's pertinence here is self-evident. Something that is falsified or perverted is not correct; ergo, something that is disingenuous lacks correctness, with no statement towards the speaker's motives or state of mind.



> _ also notice you look at sincere rather than insincere - does the OED under the entry of "insincere" say that it means the same as not sincere?  Or does it say more than that?  Because you've jumped straight from disingenuous to sincere without going through insincere (which the M-W defines as "Not sincere; hypocritical" - and the way it is not sincere is the sort of way that implies hypocricy)._




It says quite a bit more than that, but again, I fail to see how that's relevant - words can have multiple definitions, so unless you're claiming that every instance of a word's use means that it's employing every definition simultaneously, that's irrelevant. Given that, as you noted, the M-W defines "insincere" as being "not sincere" that pretty well closes the book on that argument. That is includes a secondary definition does not change the first definition.



> _Given that you haven't quoted the OED on the subject of Insincere at all, you haven't shown a thing.  You have only quoted sincere.  And insincere may be derived from sincere and by a literal meaning be not sincere - but words in English don't mean their literal meanings.  And given that you appear to have selectively quoted the OED without including the context (and a text without context is a pretext) I don't think my disagreement is with the OED._




From what I can tell here, you're attempting to introduce some sort of dissonance between "insincere" and "not sincere," and so say that citing something as lacking the defining qualities of "sincere" does not mean that it's the same thing as "insincere." Needless to say, I look askance on that argument - when you find yourself saying that "words in English don't mean their literal meanings," you may want to reassess your thinking.

Insofar as it goes the OED definition of "insincere" (Second Edition, volume seven, page 1,028) notes that it is "not sincere or genuine" as the first part of the very first definition given. It does also give mentions of dissembling, but the semicolon there shows that these are separated meanings (incidentally, it also cites "disingenuous," and explicitly states that this can be said or persons or their actions).



> _The entire OED entry matters - as does the actual entry for the OED on the word insincere - an entry that was conspicuously absent in your reply._




Incorrect. This is another attempt on your part to try and state that any use of a word invokes all meanings of the word, no matter how disparate they might be in context.



> _Insincere in the M-W also points to hypocritical.  Both are needed if you are to use the M-W effectively.  But instead of bringing up the OED's description of Insincere you are instead using a secondary meaning of Sincere.  Which is a different word.  And the full OED passage you have taken out of context appears (if I am right) to demonstrate that it's truth in the sense of not being falsified or perverted._




Not so, as demonstrated above.



> _At best it means that you are tragically mistaken out of the way your use of the English language will be taken by people of good faith. And as you are giving offence to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] whether you mean to or not, and he has called you on this, that on its own should be enough to make you select language that will not give offence.  However your response has been to resort to subsidiary meanings in the dictionary to say that what you were saying was not offensive.  And when I pointed out what the dictionary said, your response involved some selective quoting, only quoting a little of the root word "disingenuous", entirely missing one of the important words (insincere) out, only partially quoting disingenuous, and seemingly only selectively quoting from one of the meanings of sincere in a way that ignores the overall meaning._




The only way to arrive at the above goal is through willful misinterpretation of the facts presented previously, which is a shame since it means that you're admitting that you're trying to twist my words. I had hoped that this was simply a case of you being tragically misguided, but it seems that you're deliberately going out of your way to find the most offensive meaning possible, even when expressly told that's not what I stated.

Simply put, at this point I have pointed out that there are multiple, nuanced meanings for the word "disingenuous" and have shown how it can be applied to a person's statement (to say that it lacks an element of truth unto itself) without speaking in any regard to the person saying it.

Your response has been to state that any use of a word must include all of its disparate meanings simultaneously, and that even though I've explained in great detail why my words not only didn't mean what you thought they did - and that my usage of them was in no way arcane - you continue to insist that they contained another meaning altogether, and that any instance of suggesting a particular definition of a word (rather than all of them at once) is "selecting quoting" from its definitions.

There is, quite simply, no truth to your claims (notice that I'm referring to your claims in particular, rather than you in general), which makes them, in a notable irony, disingenuous.



> _Anyway, thank you for giving me a distraction from worrying about my little sister's latest heart operation._




Certainly. I hope that it goes very well for her.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 28, 2013)

Morrus said:


> You guys.  Drop it, please.  Nobody's going to "win" anything here.




Whoops, I had already started writing my response before you posted this, Morrus. Sorry!

EDIT: And, just to be clear, let me state that I consider the matter closed and will say no more on it.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 28, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> The difference here is that the wizard at least has some unique class resources available to make up for a lack of CHA, while the Fighter has no unique class resources available. All things being equal, the Wizard is better simply because he has class resources.




 I don't disagree that the Wizard's spells provide him a significant level of flexibility.  That said, the Fighter has what, 11 bonus combat feats over 20 levels which allow him to have a pretty fair repertoire of combat tricks, even if he chooses to devote all of his general feats to other purposes.  The Wizard would end up with four metamagic or item creation feats by taking the same approach.

 Let's assume the Fighter takes Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator, augmenting his diplomacy score by +5, and invests in cross class ranks.  The wizard is equally able to devote cross-class ranks, but doesn't make the feat investment.  What's the Wizard's great answer to the Fighter's superior diplomatic skills?  He certainly has some spells, but magic is also subject to detection and dispelling.  If the wizard is all loaded up with negotiation magic and happens to have an unexpected combat encounter, what does he do?  The Fighter still has all his combat skills.  He can also influence any number of people with that Diplomacy - he doesn't run out of skill checks per day, nor does he need to rest for a day to move from being a diplomat to a warrior.

 Both pale in comparison to a Bard, or even a Cleric with a decent CHA and diplomacy and sense motive as class skills, but such characters are better geared for Diplomacy.

 Now, I agree completely that the 3rd Ed non-spellcaster classes merit more and better abilities.  I think Pathfinder does a good job enhancing them without making the other classes suffer (everyone gets more goodies; the classes that needed them most get more additions), although still not perfect.  It also levels the playing field between class and non-class skills a lot (+3 bonus rather than doubled costs and halved maximums makes a huge difference; Skill Focus can offset a Class skill, with an even bigger bonus with a significant investment in the skill), and provides a lot more options with its Archetype model.

 Even there, the Fighter's bennies are combat-focused - but that provides even more combat advantages, so he has lots of options in his field of expertise even if he chooses to direct some skill points and regular feats into a second area of expertise.  Does he have to give up some combat focus to be a diplomat and a leader?  Sure.  But, again, the game is about choices.  If you want to be the UberWarrrior, then devote all your character resources to being the UberWarrior - but that is all you will be.  If you want to be good at two, or three, things, you won't be as good at any of them as a character focused entirely on that one area - but you also will be quite useful in two or three areas, rather than exremely powerful in just one.

 If the wizard wants to wear armor and wield a greatsword, he will have to give up some wizardly prowess as well.  He, too, makes choices.  He won't be as great a caster, but he'll be much more useful in an anti-magic zone, or dealing with very spell-resistant opponents.  He can afford to focus more on casting, though - if he relies on his allies to deal with those challenges where he is not so potent, and is reduced to a support character.  Our Sorcerer felt pretty useless in a recent (fairly low level) encounter - the enemy was immune to her enchantments, resistant to her damaging spells and pretty hard to hit even with a mundane ranged attack (while flying).  But she *could *still use Mage Hand to manipulate a skull from the local "decor" in the enemy's face for an "aid another" effect at range.  Not the game-winner, but a definite boon to the group.  She had her moment to shine, when she was dropping Goblins with her Sleep spell - this time, others get to shine, but that doesn't mean she has to sit around bored, doing nothing.  It does mean the player may have to think outside the box.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 28, 2013)

Balesir said:


> 2) Make it so that convoluted sequences of "mundane" action can be specified and adjudicated in just one step, just as spellcasting (in D&D) can be.




This is really interesting and a worthy topic. 



sheadunne said:


> The mechanic is one that summarizes individual play when a party member leaves the group. There are plenty of times when this particular mechanic could be used and I think it would primarily be used by Rogue/Thief characters, who are the ones who more often than other characters, disappears to either scout, infiltrate, or investigate, but it could apply to any character who temporarily leaves the group to engage in some other activity (a ranger who scouts ahead, a cleric who leaves to visit the church, etc).




This is very insightful and could solve a lot of situations. Sometimes the player want's so play out this as a scene, sometime the GM wants to, and in those cases you should generally play it out. But in many cases it is simply not convenient or desirable to do so, and will bore a large part of the group. And while this applies to a lot of scouting/information gathering situations, it is sometimes relevant for the central crux of the mission - while the whole mission centers on opening the safe and the rest of the mission is a transport there, if only one player is involved in the safecracking, it might still be best to resolve that abstractly. A typical situation for this wold be netrunning in Shadowrun, one of the most time-consuming solo tasks ever. Another are for tasks like spell research. 

The problem is, players might feel cheated if what they expected to be their time in the spotlight is abbreviated to a single die roll. Also, in a solo task like this success or failure too eaily hangs on just a single roll. Something like the 4E skill challenge system could work. Is this what skill challenges should have been? Actually, the ideal system for this ought to be simpler than that, but should still involve more than a simple roll.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 28, 2013)

N'raac said:


> So, what, first you want to invest all of your character resources in being a big, huking brute, sacrificing wit, charm and insight to do so.  Then you want to be a forceful, respected leader in the campaign world.  These seem inconsistent to me.  I would expect that the ability to influence people would  be largely CHA-based.  About the only reasonable exception I perceive would be intimiation-based interaction, an arena the game has decided to base on CHA (which I think is also a reasonable approach).






N'raac said:


> the Fighter has what, 11 bonus combat feats over 20 levels which allow him to have a pretty fair repertoire of combat tricks, even if he chooses to devote all of his general feats to other purposes.  The Wizard would end up with four metamagic or item creation feats by taking the same approach.




The figher's 11 combat feats indeed means he has much greater freedom to select non-combat abilities for his remaining 10 feats. So in this way he should have access to some nice non-combat tricks too. The problem is that there are few non-combat feats of notice, and that combat is generally regarded as so important that to "waste" a fighter's feat on noncombat abilities draws snide remarks. Just like the fighter is supposed to dump his mental attributes to be a better combatant. The fault here is manifold - it is a cultural expectations issue, but also a problem with how the fighter class is built (MAD) and how much of his attribute points he is expected to devote to be competitive.



N'raac said:


> But a Charm spell is not diplomacy.  First, you are casting a spell, a pretty obvious action.  If the target does save, don't expect the target's response to be anything positive.  If he does not, he is still not going to be happy when the enchantment wears off and his mind is no longer ensorcled.  Just like those extortion efforts by the fighter or rogue are unlikely to carry a long-term result of a friendly ally.




Very much this. A character that was mistreated while charmed is likely to realize this and magical coersion should be illegal in most fantasy societies. A party that has access to mundane Diplomacy can avoid using the first case, and even if they do use it can treat the carmed character in a way that does not make him hostile afterwards - when he thinks back on his own responses, they make sense because he was treated well.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 28, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Let's assume the Fighter takes Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator, augmenting his diplomacy score by +5, and invests in cross class ranks.  The wizard is equally able to devote cross-class ranks, but doesn't make the feat investment.  What's the Wizard's great answer to the Fighter's superior diplomatic skills?  He certainly has some spells, but magic is also subject to detection and dispelling.  If the wizard is all loaded up with negotiation magic and happens to have an unexpected combat encounter, what does he do?  The Fighter still has all his combat skills.  He can also influence any number of people with that Diplomacy - he doesn't run out of skill checks per day, nor does he need to rest for a day to move from being a diplomat to a warrior.




There's the disconnect. There's nothing unique about taking diplomacy. If both players take it, the advantage is still in the hands of the wizard. Even if the wizard doesn't take it, he'll eventually have spells that override diplomacy. There is no possible way for the fighter to keep up based on the mechanics of the game. The fighter has no class option to be diplomatic, no resources available that are unique to the class. The question though, is that an issue? Not particularly. Diplomacy is just one way to control the narrative and not one that I think is paramount for the fighter to have. Personally, I really like the option to take the narrative to the fighter, instead of the fighter to the narrative. Allow the fighter to reframe the scene to where the fighter shines. I think we've probably all done it running games. Perhaps through duels or arena fights. You'll win an audience with the king if you can defeat my toughest guy, no amount of talking will change his mind. If the wizard can force the narrative to change via charm person (oh, you're really not indifferent after all) or dominate person (I own you as long as I don't push you), then why not the fighter with displays of combat (Let me show you how capable I am). Didn't the Knight class have something like that built in? A challenge ability of some sort? I never played the class so I can't entirely remember.

Does this add complexity to the fighter? Maybe. I don't know. Is it appealing for those who like to play fighters? Maybe. I've known a few players who would relish the chance to change the narrative to a duel and not look like the aggressor or a problem player.

When it comes to the possible exploration tier, the fighter again would be able to bring the exploration to combat. Locked/Trapped door give you trouble, break it without drawing unnecessary attention using your class ability. 

I don't know, it seems like it has possibility. The last thing I want to do is nerf the casters to bring martials in line. I'd rather give tools to the martials. And I'm fine with these tools being built in to existing abilities (in the case of fighters, that would be feats). Give the feats an ability that only the fighter can unlock. Anyone can take Feat A, but when the fighter takes it as a bonus feat, he can now do B with it. 

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 28, 2013)

Balesir said:


> 2) Make it so that convoluted sequences of "mundane" action can be specified and adjudicated in just one step, just as spellcasting (in D&D) can be..




Trying to avoid focusing all of this into a single die roll, I suggest something like this: 

i) Select a task difficulty. Something like 10 + the highest relevant skill among the opposition makes sense. If the task is particularly audacious, the DM may set a minimum skill based on the stunts involved.

ii) Select a number of skills that are applicable to the task; generally the more complex and difficult the task, the more skills would be relevant. The GM and player works this out together, so the player can influence which skills are relevant by picking appropriate tactics.

iii) Test all these skills. As long as ANY skill is a success, the overall task succeeds. Each failed check indicates some complication - ranging from a delay, to a loss of equipment, gp (bribes), hp, or other resource. Perhaps a favor owned, unwanted romantic interest, or other plot complication.

iv) The DM hands out minor rewards for successful rolls beyond the first one - and make them depend on what skill skill check you passed. Perception gleans important information, Diplomacy gives you contacts, Sleight of hand could give loot, and any skill could negate a failure from step iii above. 

This way, you are almost guaranteed to succeed with complex plans involving many skills, but you also suffer complications that can serve as later adventure hooks. The player gets a temporary spotlight, while the whole task takes but a few minutes to play out.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 28, 2013)

This is not directed to sheadunne but to you thread posters in general. Something has not been right in this thread and I've tried to identify it. Perhaps this is it:



sheadunne said:


> There's the disconnect. There's nothing unique about taking diplomacy. If both players take it, the advantage is still in the hands of the wizard. Even if the wizard doesn't take it, he'll eventually have spells that override diplomacy.




There has been a lot of posts along these line, and there seems to be an agenda pursued by some posters here to campaign for the reduction of spellcaster power, and perhaps an agenda to convince people to play 4E instead, because there is less perceived spellcaster imbalance there. Well, please take that agenda someplace else. This is a thread that attempts to find positive options for increasing the options of non-spellcasters. It is not about spell ability in any shape or form, and talking about spellcasters except as possible inspirations (charm person can do this, thus rogues could do this without disrupting game balance) is hereby declared off-topic.

*Edit:* The rest of the quoted post deals with matters that are very much on-topic, so it was not a good post to quote really. I just got too much of all the calls for spellcaster nerfing in a thread devoted to non-spellcasters.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 28, 2013)

[MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]

I think the problem people are struggling with is granting narrative authority traditionally in D&D has resided with spellcasting so it is a natural response to compare that to authority via spell use and bring that up in discussion and ask "how can we do that at my table without it feeling _wrong_?

A natural place is "is magic too strong" but mostly as a reaction to "if I let other narrative styles do that then its too strong, so magic needs to be tamed down"

I don't agree with that premise, but I think it's a valid approach to attempting to answer the question you posed.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 28, 2013)

Starfox said:


> This is not directed to sheadunne but to you thread posters in general. Something has not been right in this thread and I've tried to identify it. Perhaps this is it:
> 
> There has been a lot of posts along these line, and there seems to be an agenda pursued by some posters here to campaign for the reduction of spellcaster power, and perhaps an agenda to convince people to play 4E instead, because there is less perceived spellcaster imbalance there. Well, please take that agenda someplace else. This is a thread that attempts to find positive options for increasing the options of non-spellcasters. It is not about spell ability in any shape or form, and talking about spellcasters except as possible inspirations (charm person can do this, thus rogues could do this without disrupting game balance) is hereby declared off-topic.
> 
> *Edit:* The rest of the quoted post deals with matters that are very much on-topic, so it was not a good post to quote really. I just got too much of all the calls for spellcaster nerfing in a thread devoted to non-spellcasters.




I think you read that quote backwards. It's not about spellcaster nerf, far from it, it's about fighter strengthening. I'm not sure how you read anything else about it. (FYI, I don't play 4e, although there are some nice narrative options in it).


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 28, 2013)

Okay, let's leave the issue of spellcasting out of it for a moment.

If we presume that universal mechanics to increase narrative options (presumably in non-combat narratives) are insufficient because they're not specific to non-spellcasters, all that seems to be left is to try and increase class-specific non-combat narrative options among the non-spellcasting classes.

What ideas do people have in that regard? Or is there another presumption for non-universal methods for increasing non-combat narrative options that I'm not thinking of?


----------



## N'raac (Jun 28, 2013)

Starfox said:


> The figher's 11 combat feats indeed means he has much greater freedom to select non-combat abilities for his remaining 10 feats. So in this way he should have access to some nice non-combat tricks too. The problem is that there are few non-combat feats of notice, and that combat is generally regarded as so important that to "waste" a fighter's feat on noncombat abilities draws snide remarks. Just like the fighter is supposed to dump his mental attributes to be a better combatant. The fault here is manifold - it is a cultural expectations issue, but also a problem with how the fighter class is built (MAD) and how much of his attribute points he is expected to devote to be competitive.




MAD?  As I see it, the fighter, _qua_ Fighter, focuses on STR (DEX if he indends to be a light armored finesse fighter) primarily, CON (which is a benefit to every character who ever takes a hp penalty?, and fighters already have good FORT saves) and a 12 DEX (for non-finesse, heavy armor will cap your DEX bonus anyway).  The Wizard, among the least MAD classes, focuses on INT primarily, but still needs CON (hp and saves) and DEX (ranged touch attacks, AC and saves) at least as much as the fighter does.

I agree it's very much cultural expectations.  How much do the existing non-combat feats get used?  Is there demand for more?  Books of combat feats sell.  How many characters of any class invest in those non-combat feats?

How many GM's minimize or reject interaction skills in favour of "role playing it", making any investment in diplomacy of dubious, if any, value (but no one has to role play a Charm spell!).



Starfox said:


> Very much this. A character that was mistreated while charmed is likely to realize this and magical coersion should be illegal in most fantasy societies. A party that has access to mundane Diplomacy can avoid using the first case, and even if they do use it can treat the carmed character in a way that does not make him hostile afterwards - when he thinks back on his own responses, they make sense because he was treated well.




Even treated well, he was coerced by magic.  In my view, this starts off on the wrong foot, so he'd best be treated VERY well indeed.  Bringing him around shouldn't be much easier than bringing around a fellow kidnapped against his will, but "for his own good" - say, to get him away from the evil assassins he doesn't yet know about.  "There wasn't any time to explain".



sheadunne said:


> There's the disconnect. There's nothing unique about taking diplomacy. If both players take it, the advantage is still in the hands of the wizard. Even if the wizard doesn't take it, he'll eventually have spells that override diplomacy.




I keep hearing that without the spells being specified.  Charm and Dominate are exertions of force, not diplomatic tools.  Treated as such, the wizard finds use for diplomacy.



sheadunne said:


> There is no possible way for the fighter to keep up based on the mechanics of the game. The fighter has no class option to be diplomatic, no resources available that are unique to the class.




And Bards lack both the wizard's spell repertoire and the fighter's combat skills.  Each class has strengths and weaknesses.  That does not mean a class which is geared to other areas primarily cannot be somewhat effective in a secondary area, but they need to devote resources to it. 



sheadunne said:


> The question though, is that an issue? Not particularly. Diplomacy is just one way to control the narrative and not one that I think is paramount for the fighter to have. Personally, I really like the option to take the narrative to the fighter, instead of the fighter to the narrative. Allow the fighter to reframe the scene to where the fighter shines. I think we've probably all done it running games. Perhaps through duels or arena fights. You'll win an audience with the king if you can defeat my toughest guy, no amount of talking will change his mind. If the wizard can force the narrative to change via charm person (oh, you're really not indifferent after all) or dominate person (I own you as long as I don't push you), then why not the fighter with displays of combat (Let me show you how capable I am). Didn't the Knight class have something like that built in? A challenge ability of some sort? I never played the class so I can't entirely remember.




I'll be no help on the knight class - sorry.  I don't think everything should be about combat, though.  If the Fighter can make everything work out through a fight, why can't the rogue turn everything into a lock he must pick, or a trap he must disarm?  Give the Fighter the abiity to make every challenge about brute strength and combat prowess, and soon we will have a dozen threads complaining about the futility of playing anything but a fighter.  Or, alternatively, the charge often levied (rightly or wrongly  I'm not familiar enough with 4e to make that call, and it's not germane to the thread anyway) that all the characters have more or less the same abilities, with different names, so pick any class and it will be more or less the same.



sheadunne said:


> Does this add complexity to the fighter? Maybe. I don't know. Is it appealing for those who like to play fighters? Maybe. I've known a few players who would relish the chance to change the narrative to a duel and not look like the aggressor or a problem player.




To the latter, I have no comment.  To the former, what other word would you use to define someone who solves every problem with a fistfight?



sheadunne said:


> I don't know, it seems like it has possibility. The last thing I want to do is nerf the casters to bring martials in line. I'd rather give tools to the martials. And I'm fine with these tools being built in to existing abilities (in the case of fighters, that would be feats). Give the feats an ability that only the fighter can unlock. Anyone can take Feat A, but when the fighter takes it as a bonus feat, he can now do B with it.
> 
> Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.




Agreed on both counts - build up the disadvantaged classes, and an interesting discussion.  I don't know that "only fighters can unlock" is the answer, but feats could certainly have abilities unlocked only by, say, having some minimum BAB, base save bonus, ranks in one or more specific skills, or what have you, gearing them to specific classes.  If their resolution mechanic also favors a character strong in that area (sure, the L12 Wizard has +6 BAB now, but a +6 BAB aghainst CR 12 opponents still makes successful use of the feat unlikely - or mabe the result is something the figher wants and the wizard doesn't, like "the target of the feat will focus all his attacks on the feat user"), then the feat will favour that class/role/what have you.

But I think Starfox' issue has to be resolved first - providing resources to enhance non-combat options is only beneficial if players want those non-combat options enough to use their resources to  buy them *instead of combat enhancers*.  Alternatively, I suppose a completely new set of resources (like bonus non-combat feats, or a separate track for non-combat feats) could be added so you have no choice - you either take these, or you get nothing at all.  Unless a +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive is viewed as being as useful as +2 damage, the Fighter will keep taking Weapon Specialization and complaining that he can't be a Leader of Men and Ruler of the Kingdom because "the mechanics don't allow it".  The problem is that the mechanics don't allow it *without giving something else up in exchange*.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 28, 2013)

N'raac said:


> But I think Starfox' issue has to be resolved first - providing resources to enhance non-combat options is only beneficial if players want those non-combat options enough to use their resources to  buy them *instead of combat enhancers*.  Alternatively, I suppose a completely new set of resources (like bonus non-combat feats, or a separate track for non-combat feats) could be added so you have no choice - you either take these, or you get nothing at all.  Unless a +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive is viewed as being as useful as +2 damage, the Fighter will keep taking Weapon Specialization and complaining that he can't be a Leader of Men and Ruler of the Kingdom because "the mechanics don't allow it".  The problem is that the mechanics don't allow it *without giving something else up in exchange*.




I agree, I just find the cost a little skewed across the classes. 

I always wondered why, if the game was focused on three tiers, that classes weren't necessarily built to support it. It bugged me when when I was looking at the 5e playtest documents. Why not give each class a class ability choice at each third level on one tier. That way, a class isn't making choices between combat feats and non-combat feats, but between various options in each tier. (Not that I'm convinced of the tier system, but it just seemed odd). 

Fighter
Level 1 - Choice of Combat Feats
Level 2 - Choice of Exploration Feats
Level 3 - Choice of Social Feats

Rinse and repeat

Wizard
Level 1 - Choice of Exploration Spells
Level 2 - Choice of Combat Spells
Level 3 - Choice of Social Spells

Rinse and repeat

Bard
Level 1 - Choice of Social Abilities
Level 2 - Choice of Exploration Abilities
Level 3 - Choice of Combat Abilities

Rinse and repeat

I just thought it was odd that they put some much emphasis on the three tiers and then didn't bake them into the classes. Oh well.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 28, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Trying to avoid focusing all of this into a single die roll, I suggest something like this:
> 
> </snip>
> 
> This way, you are almost guaranteed to succeed with complex plans involving many skills, but you also suffer complications that can serve as later adventure hooks. The player gets a temporary spotlight, while the whole task takes but a few minutes to play out.




Nice. This resolves an issue I had with infiltration, which is disguise, bluff, some stealth and possibly even a version of survival (but applicable to a hostile urban environment rather than the wilderness).

Prior to this idea it seemed Infiltration (Cha) would have to be the way to go as bluff and disguise are the main components, despite stealth and other skills being involved.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 28, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Trying to avoid focusing all of this into a single die roll, I suggest something like this:
> 
> i) Select a task difficulty. Something like 10 + the highest relevant skill among the opposition makes sense. If the task is particularly audacious, the DM may set a minimum skill based on the stunts involved.
> 
> ...




One and done usually isn't very rewarding, especially in this case where it's an exchange for roleplaying. 

D&D currently doesn't have a complications system, but I think it could use one, especially with skills. Would a success system (roll a handful of dice and any number over x is a success) be a good way to resolve this, rather than doing math with each roll for each skill? Perhaps each failure places your character further away from the end goal. No successes would mean a really bad complication.

If you needed 5 successes (because there's say 5 parts to the plan) to infiltrate the palace and end up behind the king, each success puts your closer to that goal. If the goal looked like this . . . 

0) Outside the caste ----> 1) disguise yourself as a serving man -----> 2) sneak into the kitchen -----> 3) Hide from anyone who knows you -----> 4) maneuver around the guards surrounding the king ----- > 5) appear behind the king

If you only rolled 2 successes you got discovered in the kitchen and weren't able to make it. If you rolled three success, maybe someone recognized you, etc. All failures might result in getting caught and put in jail or some other big upset.

Anyway, I don't think D&D has ever had a success system in the game so it probably wouldn't be a good fit. I just think that introducing mechanical complications requires a different system than the standard used in D&D.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 28, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I agree, I just find the cost a little skewed across the classes.
> 
> I always wondered why, if the game was focused on three tiers, that classes weren't necessarily built to support it. It bugged me when when I was looking at the 5e playtest documents. Why not give each class a class ability choice at each third level on one tier. That way, a class isn't making choices between combat feats and non-combat feats, but between various options in each tier. (Not that I'm convinced of the tier system, but it just seemed odd).




We could also build on this.  There's no reason every class needs to be the same.  What if every L1 character (not 1st level in the class, *L1 character*, like "every L1 character gets a Feat") got a combat, exploration and social ability.  Perhaps these could be from lists dictated by race, rather than by class.  Then, as they gain levels, their class determines what they get, perhaps



sheadunne said:


> Fighter
> Level 1 - Choice of Combat Feats
> Level 2 - Choice of Exploration Feats
> Level 3 - Choice of Combat Feats
> ...




No reason everyone has to have 2 in one category and one in the other two, either.


----------



## Balesir (Jun 28, 2013)

Starfox said:


> ii) Select a number of skills that are applicable to the task; generally the more complex and difficult the task, the more skills would be relevant. The GM and player works this out together, so the player can influence which skills are relevant by picking appropriate tactics.



I really like most of this - especially the complications (would maybe need more details) and bonus for successes after the first - but it has a problem here in that more complex tasks will be *more* likely to succeed if it works this way. Maybe allow the selection of as many skills as the player likes that can be justified by the plan, but difficulty increases the minimum successes needed? Bonus successes still bring perks, failures still bring complications (thus adding lots of skills is not risk-free), but a certain number of successes are needed to succeed at the base action/plan. I think that could work.



Mike Eagling said:


> Nice. This resolves an issue I had with infiltration, which is disguise, bluff, some stealth and possibly even a version of survival (but applicable to a hostile urban environment rather than the wilderness).



This is called "Streetwise" in 4E and I think the name fits well.



P.S. On the references to 4E thing, since those who like 4E found that a lot of these issues were addressed in that edition, referring to it seems very natural. I understand that some folk don't like the way 4E did some of the addressing, but the frequent apparent assumptions that 4E didn't happen - things like "we want to use already existing mechanisms" when an alternative exists in 4E but is being (what seems like deliberately) ignored - are just irritating to me and, I imagine, to others like me. I'm perfectly happy to discuss alternatives and new options for doing stuff, but it just rankles when I see what I find perfectly good solutions being plain ignored - not even noted with a "but I really don't like this way of solving the problem" but just bypassed as if they were never presented - such that it's hard to keep focussed on being constructive sometimes.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 28, 2013)

Balesir said:


> This is called "Streetwise" in 4E and I think the name fits well.




What the urban "survival" skill? Yeah, it wasn't quite what I had in mind at the time but based on my knowledge of that skill from modern-era/futuristic games I guess it's the closest fit.

Not sure I like the name "streetwise" for a fantasy setting but I'm at a loss for a suitable alternative!


----------



## Balesir (Jun 28, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Not sure I like the name "streetwise" for a fantasy setting but I'm at a loss for a suitable alternative!



Well, it's better than "Urban Survival" which is the only other name I could think of! 

For the vibe I get reading about (real) medieval towns, I think it fits pretty well, actually, even though "strete wyse" might not have been an actual early English term...


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 28, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Well, it's better than "Urban Survival" which is the only other name I could think of!
> 
> For the vibe I get reading about (real) medieval towns, I think it fits pretty well, actually, even though "strete wyse" might not have been an actual early English term...




Very true, it's just "Streetwise" always makes me think of James Cagney in The Public Enemy


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2013)

Well, you could go with "city-savvy" or make up a word, like "polisophistry."


----------



## Starfox (Jun 29, 2013)

N'raac said:


> But I think Starfox' issue has to be resolved first - providing resources to enhance non-combat options is only beneficial if players want those non-combat options enough to use their resources to  buy them *instead of combat enhancers*.




I didn't mean that this was an issue that has to be forced - some payers like to sit back except in combat. But too often they think this is what they want, but end up disappointed anyway when they become wallflowers in social scenes.

Teaching players this might be as simple as emphasizing the noncombat options in the character design chapter. But some siloing might be needed (meaning you have some resources (like feats) that MUST go into non-combat). 

Another way is to point out that you, as DM, will actually USE these rules. As said earlier in the thread, in an old-school game style, social skills are not rolled - they are played - and investing in them are lost.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 29, 2013)

Balesir said:


> a problem here in that more complex tasks will be *more* likely to succeed if it works this way.




I kind of saw that as a feature. I'm not proposing this as a system to resolve any vital action (that is still best done in regular play), and a player that comes up with a more involved plan getting a better chance (at greater risk of side effects) is a good thing IMO. But if we want to keep difficulties reasonably the same, we can add +2 DC per extra allowed skill or so.

The important thing here is to keep it simple, so that it can actually be resolved in just a few rolls - encouraging people to use it.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2013)

A Charm or Dominate spell give the player of the caster a high degree of certainty in respect of their control.

If non-magical social skills are to be viable alternatives, the player of the PC using those skills has to be able to achieve the same certainty/finality. (In discussions of game design this is often called "conflict resolution".) For instance, if the player succeeds in persuading the NPC to do XYZ, then the NPC can't change his/her mind even if the GM thinks that that would be "better for the story", or would be likely given the NPC's personality (the NPC's personality should have been a factor in the prior action resolution, and so already taken full account of).

This would be something of a change to pre-4e D&D adjudication, however. Typically only in combat (with its hp rules) and in spell casting has D&D exhibited this sort of finality in action resolution.


----------



## Aenghus (Jun 29, 2013)

Pinning down what's the acceptable design space for these mechanics is a serious question. Mechanics like "Here's one I prepared earlier" or "I'm calling in a favour" are controversial in D&D if not preset but retconned into existence, but these are the sort of mechanics that are essential for narrative space options. 

Social mechanics can seem to be location dependent e.g. some could be argued as working only in civilised area, while  some exploration mechanics may also be useful in limited circumstances.  Which is a problem as the less reliable mechanical features are, both in a binary work/doesn't work way and in a chance of working way, the less useful and attractive those features are compared to competing features which may be more reliable.  I certainly know I choose features with the best combination of reliabiity, chance of being useable and power. unless prioritising flavour over raw power, and even then marginally useful abilities are likely not to make the cut.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 29, 2013)

There was a suggestion many moons ago to have a feat tract and a trait tract to offset sacrificing expertise feats in favor of flavor feats. I think here something similar would would work, maybe a trait every 3 levels 

So what is a trait... whatever you need it to be to make the narrative space more engaging for you. It could be action points, it could be "slots", it could be skill tricks; whichever, they grant the player specific tools to interact directly with the narrative outside of the class core abilities


----------



## The Mormegil (Jun 29, 2013)

_*Answering the OP*_
The problem as I see it is that by having classes that are based on _not having any magic_ you are cutting them off of _*magic*_. I don't know if there's people who don't care, I don't know if there's people who didn't notice or even like this, but look at it from a system standpoint.

What is D&D about? Fantasy roleplaying. What is fantasy? Well, mostly how stuff could be with magic. Low magic, high magic, technomagic, whatever you call it, if there ain't dragons it ain't D&D. So, magic is a pervasive element in the narrative, it's expected to be, it's important and people know it. There's tons of rules for it. There's also tons of fun to be had with it. It's *goddamn magic!
*
And yet we keep allowing classes whose main characteristic is "I dun deal wit dat stuff duh". So, basically, we have characters that when confronting with the most interesting and important part of the setting (I admit this is arguable, but still, it IS important), have the only option to say "duh" or "I'll be over there doing other stuff". There's a mysterious light pillar in the center of the room: what's the fighter to do? Well he ain't rolling Knowledge (arcane) for it that's sure. He isn't going to use an Identify ritual or whatever the system has in place to understand what's going on.

Now I get the whole "spotlight" point of view. I will also flat out state that I believe it sucks, because a game should not aim to make sure everybody is equally bored, it should make sure everybody has fun while playing. I want everybody to be able to participate in each meaningful scene. But that is not something really important to the point. Why? Because the other classes aren't arbitrarily cut off from important pieces of the game. A wizard can contribute to fights. To "balance" his advantage in magic-based situations you could argue he should suck in every fight and have nothing to contribute, and I think there's people that believe that should be true.

However _even if you do that _(and you don't), wizards will _still _be able to contribute to fights. Ever had that brilliant moment where the wizard without spells loosened the chains of an enraged beast who slaughtered the orcs and allowed the party to win the fight? Or the wizard who just blew up the whole place with a well placed... torch?
_
There is an intrinsic problem with magic._ And that is, to be blunt, that it isn't real. You don't know how magic works, but you bloody well know how a torch works. If your character has no in-game, systemic ways to interact with magic, you may as well just shut up in magic-based situations. But if your character has no idea how to approach a social situation, you can always contribute ("You shouldn't because roleplay and blah blah blah" whatever _you can_. With magic no you can't, unless you try stuff at random and hope it works, and I've seen _plenty_ of fighters doing exactly that, even if occasionally they blew the party up, because doing nothing is _no fun_.)

You could argue that a "proper" and "consistent" magic system would solve that, but first, it requires extensive out-of-character knowledge of system mechanics that newcomers won't have, and second, it won't work on _anything_ houseruled or invented for the adventure. I guess that's where the love for gargantuan spell lists comes from, but I really think that's not the best path to remedy this problem. It restricts the DM and it creates disparities, problems and excludes new players.

What I think is truly needed to "balance" fighters and wizards from a narrative point of view, is ways for the fighters (and rogues and warlords and... everyone) to _*interact with the most interesting part of every setting: MAGIC.*_
It doesn't need to be spells. It doesn't need to be skills. It doesn't need to be the same ways wizards or priests or what-have-you interact with magic. It can very well be what sets the class apart from everyone else (ever wondered why Spellthieves were so popular in 3.5, even though the class had literally NOTHING worth anything to anyone ever? I think this is the reason: they had a unique approach to magic, RP wise).
Let barbarians smell magic. Let rogues steal spells and eldritch tapestries. Let rangers create magic traps (and therefore know about them). Let fighters understand magic, damn it, why wouldn't they? Hey, here's this thing called magic, it reshapes the world, but no don't learn anything about it even though you may very well be killed by a fireball in battle, you won't need it and you're too dumb lol. They don't need to be doing magic, but I bloody well know that airplanes fly and have wings without being an engineer! I know how a computer works on a surface level and I use a computer every day without being a programmer! Why would _anyone in any fantasy world ever _decide to not interact with magic, anyway?
*
TL;DR: you should make sure every character can do stuff about magic because not being able to sucks. Invent creative ways to achieve that goal without making everything into a wizard.*


----------



## Starfox (Jun 29, 2013)

pemerton said:


> A Charm or Dominate spell give the player of the caster a high degree of certainty in respect of their control.
> 
> If non-magical social skills are to be viable alternatives, the player of the PC using those skills has to be able to achieve the same certainty/finality. (In discussions of game design this is often called "conflict resolution".) For instance, if the player succeeds in persuading the NPC to do XYZ, then the NPC can't change his/her mind even if the GM thinks that that would be "better for the story", or would be likely given the NPC's personality (the NPC's personality should have been a factor in the prior action resolution, and so already taken full account of).




Actually, I feel the opposite. Charm spells are useful, but require opposed Charisma rolls - good for a Sorcerer or Bard, not for a typical Wizard. Charm applies only to the caster - the creature might well snack on your comrades and offer you a bloody haunch as a friendship gift. And Domination is like running a puppet - you can make it say anything, but you cannot ask it questions. (Depends on how you interpret "actions", but to me it speaks of action in a tactical game aspect - I suppose some DMs let creatures spell the beans when dominated). Diplomacy and Bluff are reliable means of extracting information in a friendly manner, Intimidate is a reliable and easy way to extract information from a prisoner or someone you can bully. 

It is common in scenarios to note that that a creature will only divulge information if magically coerced, but I can't find any support for this in the spell descriptions - a creature opposed to telling you something critical will actually get extra saves not to do so, unlike with skills. For really certain interrogation, you need telepathic abilities, and then we're talking about quite high-level abilities.

In the end, I feel the DM can always play this to reveal just as much as he likes, and the DM's agenda for the adventure trumphs both skills and spells.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 29, 2013)

pemerton said:


> A Charm or Dominate spell give the player of the caster a high degree of certainty in respect of their control.




Starfox has outlined some of the limitations to this approach above.  I also expect most targets would be hostile once the charm ends and they know they have been ensorcelled. Of course, if the GM lets the players reapply the spell. with perfect knowledge of when it will wear off and/or has the target shrug off this use of magical coercion as no biggie (when being forced, intimidated or blackmailed - that is, coerced non-magically - would have made him a permanent enemy), then again, magic gains power over the mundane.



pemerton said:


> If non-magical social skills are to be viable alternatives, the player of the PC using those skills has to be able to achieve the same certainty/finality. (In discussions of game design this is often called "conflict resolution".) For instance, if the player succeeds in persuading the NPC to do XYZ, then the NPC can't change his/her mind even if the GM thinks that that would be "better for the story", or would be likely given the NPC's personality (the NPC's personality should have been a factor in the prior action resolution, and so already taken full account of).




So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?

I would add an appendix here - social skills, like spells, are every bit as effective against PC's as they are against NPC's. That amazing diplomacy check means the PC's views have been changed, and he must be role played accordingly.  As you say, physical conflict resolution doesn't get a "player veto", so neither should any other form of conflict resolution.  

I can already hear the cries of "He's MY character" - yes, he is, and YOUR CHARACTER has been persuaded of the rightness of the NPC's cause.  That's no different than being Charmed, or being wounded - that's the result the dice dictated, so play in accordance with it.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 29, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I would add an appendix here - social skills, like spells, are every bit as effective against PC's as they are against NPC's. That amazing diplomacy check means the PC's views have been changed, and he must be role played accordingly.  As you say, physical conflict resolution doesn't get a "player veto", so neither should any other form of conflict resolution.




Tried that, doesn't work. PC are special. Each of them has as much personality behind them as the whole rest of the world. Can't get around that easily.

On the other hand, IMC PC's tend to be insured against death and most permanent injury too. PC deaths simply doesn't work well in a storytelling game.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 29, 2013)

The Mormegil said:


> you should make sure every character can do stuff about magic because not being able to sucks. Invent creative ways to achieve that goal without making everything into a wizard.




In games like Earthdawn and in anime-inspired fantasy, everybody is a magician - some magicians just happen to be swinging swords. Pathfinder is also moving in that direction, with the new semi-magical classes like Magus and Alchemist. But DnD has always had a tradition of allowing characters to be mundane, and yet to act on the same stage as magical characters, and for many players that is an important distinction. So the option to be nonmagical should be there, just as the option to be semi-magical, demi-magical, fully magical or any other degree each player wants.

As a comparison, everyone today can use a smartphone - its like using a magic sword, just swing it. But not everyone can get the most out of it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 29, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Starfox has outlined some of the limitations to this approach above.  I also expect most targets would be hostile once the charm ends and they know they have been ensorcelled. Of course, if the GM lets the players reapply the spell. with perfect knowledge of when it will wear off and/or has the target shrug off this use of magical coercion as no biggie (when being forced, intimidated or blackmailed - that is, coerced non-magically - would have made him a permanent enemy), then again, magic gains power over the mundane.
> 
> So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?




A couple of things here.  I've never ruled (in any edition) that the target of a successful Charm spell understands that they were under the effects of a mental compulsion for the duration of the spell.  Only in scenarios of extreme outliers (such as if the player tries to get the NPC to do something specifically antagonistic toward its own nature...or if the NPC is a well accomplished spellcaster) would I consider this ruling.  

My understanding is that the rulebooks agree with that approach.  I can't find it right quick in my old books but I know the 3.x books find it this way on PHB p177:

_"Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. For example, if you secretly cast charm person on a creature and its saving throw succeeds, it knows that someone used magic against it, but it can’t tell what you were trying to do. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, such as charm person, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells" _

It provides ruling guidance for successful saves only and is silent on failed saves; the space for reasoning therein indicating that the target doesn't reflexively "wake up and know they've been snookered and are subsequently hostile."  The target feels a hostile force or tingle on a failure but cannot deduce the effect (unless, also implicit, they are an accomplished spellcaster with the accompanying acumen).  No tingle on duration running out and puzzling over or inability to deduce the affect...and certainly nothing declaring stock awareness of the effect and SoP deduction of a magical compulsion.

Grabbed my Fate Stargazer right quick and it basically handles "Black Magic" Power of Domination charm the same way (there are gradations in the Trappings and Stunts but this is Charm specifically):
_
"A subtle maneuver which isn't immediately obvious, this places a temporary aspect on the target.  It is resisted by Resolve or an appropriate power skill.  On a failure, the target may not know the character tried to charm them."_

Hypnotize more aggressively asserts _"on a failure, the target knows the character tried to Hypnotize them."_

Again, both silent on success but provides ruling guidance on failures.  

4e D&D just mechanizes the various iterations of the power with the Arcane keyword, gives you a bonus to Diplomacy or lets you use Arcana instead of Diplomacy and says something akin to "_You weave magic into your words, defusing a dangerous situation through the fine art of diplomacy."  _No duration and nothing about deducing a hostile invasion of your autonomy by a magical compulsion and becoming hostile.  More apropos is the Ritual version of the spell (Call to Friendship).  It has duration and its effect and duration depends on your Diplomacy check.  On memory and behavior post-Ritual, it says; _"Once you complete the ritual, make a Diplomacy check to determine the  effect it has on the target. Once the ritual’s duration expires, the  target’s attitude returns to normal. The ritual does not affect the  target’s memory in any way."  _Post-ritual target's attitude reverts to normal and memory is unaffected.

For what its worth, I just asked a few folks who are not gamers what they intuitively felt the situation would be post-charm.  The consensus was that the target might be conflicted/puzzled if, at the end of the duration, they were doing something or in a place that they never would have been in otherwise (eg all of a sudden they are in a tavern that they outwardly hated or vowed to never go to).  If this were the case, depending on their intelligence or understanding of spellcasting, they maybe should get some kind of check to surmise the truth of things.  Beyond that though, no reflexive deduction or hostility.  I don't recall if that was my intuitive response to the spell when I first started playing but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 30, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> A couple of things here.  I've never ruled (in any edition) that the target of a successful Charm spell understands that they were under the effects of a mental compulsion for the duration of the spell.  Only in scenarios of extreme outliers (such as if the player tries to get the NPC to do something specifically antagonistic toward its own nature...or if the NPC is a well accomplished spellcaster) would I consider this ruling.




I've always assumed the subject of a successful Charm spell comes down off their charm-high and generally thinks "What on earth was I thinking?!" but doesn't necessarily attribute the effects to magical coercion. This is obviously dependant upon the circumstances.



Manbearcat said:


> My understanding is that the rulebooks agree with that approach.




The 1e AD&D PHB or DMG say:



			
				1e AD&D PHB Charm Person or Mammal 2lvl Druid Spell said:
			
		

> This spell will affect any single person or mammal it is cast upon. The creature then will regard the druid who cast the spell as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the druid to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but any word or action of the druid will be viewed in its most favorable way. Thus, a charmed creature would not obey a suicide command, but might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature holds back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two".






			
				1e AD&D DMG Charm Person or Mammal 2lvl Druid Spell said:
			
		

> Remember that a charmed creature’s or person’s priorities are changed as regards the spell-caster, but the charmed one’s basic personality and alignment are not. The spell is not enslave person or mammal. A request that a charmee make itself defenseless or that he/she/it be required to give up a valued item or cast a valuable spell or use a charge on a valued item (especially against the charmee’s former associates or allies) could allow an immediate saving throw to see if the charm is thrown off. In like manner, a charmed figure will not necessarily tell everything he/she/it knows or draw maps of entire areas. A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer. Also, a charm spell does not substantially alter the charmee’s feelings toward the charmer’s friends and allies. The charmed person or creature will not react well to the charmer’s allies making suggestions like ”Ask him this question . . .” The charmee is oriented toward friendship and acceptance of the charmer, but this does not mean that he/she/it will put up with verbal or physical abuse from the charmer‘s associates.






Manbearcat said:


> the space for reasoning therein indicating that the target doesn't reflexively "wake up and know they've been snookered and are subsequently hostile."




I agree but if done repeatedly upon the same subject, such as a town official, I'd argue their reaction would be significantly more hostile than if the same effect had been achieved through a mundane diplomacy or charm ability.



N'raac said:


> So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?




Agreed, this is clearly ridiculous. Just because a reasoned argument made sense at any given point in time doesn't mean people can't change their minds later or be influenced by changing circumstances.

As indicated above (at least as far as 1e is concerned) there's noting particularly certain about a magical charm.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2013)

Aenghus said:


> Pinning down what's the acceptable design space for these mechanics is a serious question. Mechanics like "Here's one I prepared earlier" or "I'm calling in a favour" are controversial in D&D if not preset but retconned into existence, but these are the sort of mechanics that are essential for narrative space options.
> 
> Social mechanics can seem to be location dependent e.g. some could be argued as working only in civilised area, while  some exploration mechanics may also be useful in limited circumstances.  Which is a problem as the less reliable mechanical features are, both in a binary work/doesn't work way and in a chance of working way, the less useful and attractive those features are compared to competing features which may be more reliable.  I certainly know I choose features with the best combination of reliabiity, chance of being useable and power. unless prioritising flavour over raw power, and even then marginally useful abilities are likely not to make the cut.




I'm just bumping this as its an interesting position that unfortunately ended up at the bottom of a page


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2013)

N'raac said:


> So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?





Mike Eagling said:


> Agreed, this is clearly ridiculous.



That must be why I didn't assert this.

It's hard to have a successful conversation if absurdities which weren't asserted are going to be imputed. Instead of looking to examples that actually were referenced, like 4e skill challenges. I'd also refer to social resolution in The Dying Earth, or The Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel. Both mechanics deliver finality without absurdity.

EDIT: If the only way that players of  fighters and rogues have to effectively change the narrative space is to have their PCs kill things, then they will take that approach. This has been a recurring issue in D&D.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2013)

For me, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is that for players to have more decision making or influence power in narrative space the DM must relinquish some control of that space, if just for a limited time.

The fixation on creating rules for players to have legitimate authority to do this is a bit of a red herring. The DM can simply create the narrative space to enable this to happen: direct authority, token exchange, check vs. target number.

The best way of working out what this looks like and how much authority will be shared is by sitting down with the players at the start of the campaign.


----------



## n00bdragon (Jun 30, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> For me, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is that for players to have more decision making or influence power in narrative space the DM must relinquish some control of that space, if just for a limited time.
> 
> The fixation on creating rules for players to have legitimate authority to do this is a bit of a red herring. The DM can simply create the narrative space to enable this to happen: direct authority, token exchange, check vs. target number.
> 
> The best way of working out what this looks like and how much authority will be shared is by sitting down with the players at the start of the campaign.




But this has not always been the case. Historically in D&D spellcasters are allowed a very wide latitude of narrative space. If the DM says there is string of mountains, a dozen orc tribes, and a frozen ocean made of the wailing of dead souls between the players and their objectives the party spellcaster almost always has access to multiple spells which bypass or trivialize these obstacles. Spells like fly, move earth, create water, charm person, invisibility, etc are often called the "batman spells" because, like Adam West, they are known for bypassing all manner of problems through trivial plot device.

The problem being addressed in this topic is that until 4e that space was entirely confined to spellcasters while everyone else was confined to doing what might be "realistically possible" (I use the term lightly) and subject to the probabilities of failure therein.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2013)

n00bdragon said:


> But this has not always been the case. Historically in D&D spellcasters are allowed a very wide latitude of narrative space. If the DM says there is string of mountains, a dozen orc tribes, and a frozen ocean made of the wailing of dead souls between the players and their objectives the party spellcaster almost always has access to multiple spells which bypass or trivialize these obstacles. Spells like fly, move earth, create water, charm person, invisibility, etc are often called the "batman spells" because, like Adam West, they are known for bypassing all manner of problems through trivial plot device.
> 
> The problem being addressed in this topic is that until 4e that space was entirely confined to spellcasters while everyone else was confined to doing what might be "realistically possible" (I use the term lightly) and subject to the probabilities of failure therein.




Yeah, I get that and have been following from the start. My point is that when ideas have surfaced, and there have been a few (retcon, feats, skill checks) they get bogged down in that a DM is not willing to assign that authority to "non-magic" reasons.

Hence, my position, you have to first release narrative authority to creat a space for non-casters before trying to rationalize it in game (personally, I like the players to do that)

With traditional D&D I think lack of a codified system for skills and feats, and far less spellcasting power was far better at this by the simple fact role playing filled the space so it was by default more about the players filling the narrative space, than rules giving hem permission.

(I've played since 1978 and I don't remember us ever experiencing  15MWD, even when the wizard only had one spell )


----------



## The Mormegil (Jun 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> In games like Earthdawn and in anime-inspired fantasy, everybody is a magician - some magicians just happen to be swinging swords. Pathfinder is also moving in that direction, with the new semi-magical classes like Magus and Alchemist. But DnD has always had a tradition of allowing characters to be mundane, and yet to act on the same stage as magical characters, and for many players that is an important distinction. So the option to be nonmagical should be there, just as the option to be semi-magical, demi-magical, fully magical or any other degree each player wants.
> 
> As a comparison, everyone today can use a smartphone - its like using a magic sword, just swing it. But not everyone can get the most out of it.





And that is why I shouldn't include TL;DR in my posts anymore.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 30, 2013)

pemerton said:


> That must be why I didn't assert this.




We donöt always argue against what people said, but against what we read into it. It happens, and isn't personal.



pemerton said:


> EDIT: If the only way that players of  fighters and rogues have to effectively change the narrative space is to have their PCs kill things, then they will take that approach. This has been a recurring issue in D&D.




Yeah, this does happen - sort of the backside of not giving any narrative control except combat is that you get a lot of combat. This is a good reason to hand out such options (which is what I suppose you meant by posting this).



Warbringer said:


> For me, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is that for players to have more decision making or influence power in narrative space the DM must relinquish some control of that space, if just for a limited time.
> 
> The fixation on creating rules for players to have legitimate authority to do this is a bit of a red herring. The DM can simply create the narrative space to enable this to happen: direct authority, token exchange, check vs. target number.
> 
> The best way of working out what this looks like and how much authority will be shared is by sitting down with the players at the start of the campaign.




For me, the problem is often to get the players to seize the initiative. I can say that "hero points lets players introduce a plot element" as much as I like, but if the players don't want to go into author stance, it won't help. Thus I prefer to write "actor stance" options for my players to use. We use what works.



The Mormegil said:


> And that is why I shouldn't include TL;DR in my posts anymore.




What does DT;DR mean?


----------



## Tuft (Jun 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> What does DT;DR mean?




For [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]:
TL;DR = "too long, did not read".  Originally a comment on too verbose and dense texts, inicating that the reader skipped whole or parts. Here it was used to indicate a summary for those who thougth the whole text was "to long, did not read".


----------



## Starfox (Jun 30, 2013)

The Mormegil said:


> And that is why I shouldn't include TL;DR in my posts anymore.




Ok, to expound om ny reply; I didn't mean to say you were wrong, I was just trying to show how it fits in the whole DnD tradition. If we can give non-casters interesting ways to interact with magic, that's a good thing. But it has complications and collides with traditions, as outlines in my answer above.

In other words, i did read your post, but I only relied to parts of it


----------



## The Mormegil (Jun 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Ok, to expound om ny reply; I didn't mean to say you were wrong, I was just trying to show how it fits in the whole DnD tradition. If we can give non-casters interesting ways to interact with magic, that's a good thing. But it has complications and collides with traditions, as outlines in my answer above.
> 
> In other words, i did read your post, but I only relied to parts of it




I'm sorry, from your comment and choice of quote I thought you didn't read the whole of it. I specifically mention that it is not required (or wanted) for everybody to be a wizard. But the point is, if you have a class whose whole purpose is to "not interact with wizardry stuff", you have a huge problem (as outlined in my post). I think there is nothing in D&D tradition that restricts fighters to be so dumb that they can't understand or do anything about magic in any way. Even just being trained to react to magic, or to resist magic, would be something (...probably too little, but something). It's not that everybody needs to do magic, it's that everybody should interact with magic. Think of it this way: would you want to have a space opera RPG with a class whose main schtick was to "not being able to use any form of technology"? Or "cannot interact with aliens in any interesting way"? Or even just "cannot go in space, not even with spacecraft"? Sure, you could do all kinds of stuff on one planet, but it's space opera. You're kind of supposed to go from planet to planet, aren't you.

I do admit I'm generally biased against D&D tradition though - mostly because it's _tradition_, AKA "doing things because tons of people did'em before and they couldn't all have been wrong could they".


----------



## Starfox (Jun 30, 2013)

The Mormegil said:


> I do admit I'm generally biased against D&D tradition though - mostly because it's _tradition_, AKA "doing things because tons of people did'em before and they couldn't all have been wrong could they".




Yeah, that's how I read your post, which is why I mentioned "other systems". In other words, if this is really important to you, perhaps DnD isn't the game for you. But that doesn't make the point invalid; this is an "All DnD" thread, but ideas for other games systems are certainly welcome.

That said, your kind of magic interaction is easy to do, but hard to write rules for. If I put a glowing pillar of light in an adventure, and someone carrying the right rune and entering the pillar can get various magical effects, that is something anyone can do (as you wish it to be) - Knowledge Arcana might help to understand this, but is not mandatory. But that's the GM's decision to put in an adventure. To actually make rules about this kind of thing is hard. IMO Earthdawn certainly didn't manage to do so, despite trying with their threadweaving rules.

In anime, magic is usually akin to DnD sorcery. Each character has his personal magic, and often doesn't have any deeper understanding of that magic - it is all inborn or intuitive. Most everybody is as clueless when they encounter a magical phenomena in the world. A game based on such a magic tradition wouldn't have may magical tools for interacting with the world either. And divination abilities are really rare. I think the reason is that it simply makes a better story t have the heroes muddle trough and find things out by trying than to say "Kazam" - problem solved. To a certain point, that is true in RPGs too.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 30, 2013)

The Mormegil said:


> I'm sorry, from your comment and choice of quote I thought you didn't read the whole of it. I specifically mention that it is not required (or wanted) for everybody to be a wizard. But the point is, if you have a class whose whole purpose is to "not interact with wizardry stuff", you have a huge problem (as outlined in my post). I think there is nothing in D&D tradition that restricts fighters to be so dumb that they can't understand or do anything about magic in any way. Even just being trained to react to magic, or to resist magic, would be something (...probably too little, but something). It's not that everybody needs to do magic, it's that everybody should interact with magic. Think of it this way: would you want to have a space opera RPG with a class whose main schtick was to "not being able to use any form of technology"? Or "cannot interact with aliens in any interesting way"? Or even just "cannot go in space, not even with spacecraft"? Sure, you could do all kinds of stuff on one planet, but it's space opera. You're kind of supposed to go from planet to planet, aren't you.
> 
> I do admit I'm generally biased against D&D tradition though - mostly because it's _tradition_, AKA "doing things because tons of people did'em before and they couldn't all have been wrong could they".




Traditionally this is simply done with magic items.

Since so many of these  duplicate magic spells, they enable those without spells to do the same thing as those who do have them, being a big equalizer.

Of course, magic items give those with spells *more* magic, but there is a *major* difference between getting an extra fly/day when you already have one or more, and getting one you did not have before!

And, as a second "of course",  this does not apply to boring old plus items (+1 to hit, damage, AC). IIRC, earlier in the thread it was mentioned that combat performance pressure might force the fighter into picking "being better at fighting" feats over non-combat/narrative control ones. The same applies to magic items. The fighter might feel forced to choose to upgrade his sword from +4 to +5 over getting that Passwall Ring, either by his own expectations, or by peer pressure.

So, to get the fighter to *actually pick* narrative control abilities, whether it is new class abilities, or old magic item abilities, how do we relieve that pressure? By limiting free selection, forcing certain build options? (In fact, we have DMs out there who, I assume unintentionally, exclude the fighter from "narrative control" style items, simply by limiting available treasure...)


----------



## The Mormegil (Jun 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> In anime, magic is usually akin to DnD sorcery. Each character has his personal magic, and often doesn't have any deeper understanding of that magic - it is all inborn or intuitive. Most everybody is as clueless when they encounter a magical phenomena in the world. A game based on such a magic tradition wouldn't have may magical tools for interacting with the world either. And divination abilities are really rare. I think the reason is that it simply makes a better story t have the heroes muddle trough and find things out by trying than to say "Kazam" - problem solved. To a certain point, that is true in RPGs too.




Anime has different priorities though. It is a non-interactive media. D&D (and other RPGs) is a game, with everybody playing. Having characters cut off from interactions is contrary to what the media is all about.

As for being difficult to write rules for... eh. If it was easy it'd be done already, and this wouldn't be a problem.
I think most of the difficulty comes from having burned an insane amount of design space on the wizard class (and arcane magic in general). But as you point out, tradition wants the wizard to be able to do everything (except wearing armor and healing of course) - and there's not much space left for others.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 30, 2013)

The more I think about this the more I think we might be going about this backwards. Instead of looking at what area of narrative space martial characters (and even casters) have influence and control over, what if we looked at what spaces the DM can reasonably release control over. 

In most editions of D&D when it comes to casters, there are certain built in blocks to narrative control. The wizards gets Teleport, but there are limitations, conditions, and counter measures that can be deployed by the DM (or the rules) to prevent it from happening. While we might agree that the caster has potentially more narrative control than a martial character, that control permission is still in the hands of the DM. If we look at increasing the martial character's narrative space, we need to figure out if this method of DM control is appropriate and necessary.

In D&D if a player wants to exhibit control over the narrative she has to 1) have the necessary resources, 2) meet the conditions of the ability and/or roll the dice, and 3) get the DM's buy-in or permission. We can design for 1 and 2 but without 3 we may not have achieved much ground.

I guess a question is, how much DM narrative control should D&D relinquish to the players via the rules? The answer to this question affects the design of martial narrative spaces as well as existing caster resources. I think that currently, every DM answers that questions for themselves, whether deliberately or through the arbitration of decisions made during play. 

If the rules change to increase player narrative space and control, then the rules also need to change to support the DMs ability to design challenges, develop story/plot elements, and to react to player narrative changes. 

Anyway, just some thoughts.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 30, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> A couple of things here.  I've never ruled (in any edition) that the target of a successful Charm spell understands that they were under the effects of a mental compulsion for the duration of the spell.  Only in scenarios of extreme outliers (such as if the player tries to get the NPC to do something specifically antagonistic toward its own nature...or if the NPC is a well accomplished spellcaster) would I consider this ruling.
> 
> My understanding is that the rulebooks agree with that approach.  I can't find it right quick in my old books but I know the 3.x books find it this way on PHB p177:
> 
> ...




First off, similar wording also exists in Pathfinder, without the specific example.  As you note, it is silent on failed saves.  In such cases, the spell does have an effect on the target - a magical compulsion.  The question now simply becomes whether the target knows it was the victim of a spell once its effects have ended.  I'm not sure any spell states the answer one way or the other.  Some seem more obvious than others (Hold Person, for example).  One possible dividing line would be compulsions (Dominate Person, Hold Person) versus less the forceful charms (Charm Person; Suggestion).

I note that a DC 25 Sense Motive check enables identification that a person is influenced by an enchantment, (reduced to 15 for a Dominated person).  Perhaps the same rule should apply to the victim, post-save.  I don't see any better skill, off the cuff, for such a self-assessment, assuming the presumption that the knowledge one was a victim of a spell is not automatic at the cessation of the spell.



Manbearcat said:


> The target feels a hostile force or tingle on a failure but cannot deduce the effect (unless, also implicit, they are an accomplished spellcaster with the accompanying acumen).  No tingle on duration running out and puzzling over or inability to deduce the affect...and certainly nothing declaring stock awareness of the effect and SoP deduction of a magical compulsion.




The sucessful save means they know they were the target of a spell.  After watching the caster speak with a strong voice while making measured and precise hand motions, then feeling that little tingle, I'd expect most characters, especially those with any familiarity with magic, to be less than pleased with the caster.  I don't think the means of deducing effect is in any wayimplicit - a Spellcraft check is the RAW means of detecting what spell was cast from observing its casting.

As always, choosing interpretations more favourable to the spellcaster where there is some doubt enhances the power of the spellcaster.



Manbearcat said:


> Grabbed my Fate Stargazer right quick and it basically handles "Black Magic" Power of Domination charm the same way (there are gradations in the Trappings and Stunts but this is Charm specifically):
> _
> "A subtle maneuver which isn't immediately obvious, this places a temporary aspect on the target.  It is resisted by Resolve or an appropriate power skill.  On a failure, the target may not know the character tried to charm them."_
> 
> Hypnotize more aggressively asserts _"on a failure, the target knows the character tried to Hypnotize them."_




I note that this non-D&D rule indicates it isn't *immediately* obvious, and allows a possibility the target does know about the attempt to charm them on a failure.  So the question becomes when does it become obvious (liking that Sense Motive more and more), and how one determines whether a failed attempt was or was not detected.



Manbearcat said:


> 4e D&D just mechanizes the various iterations of the power with the Arcane keyword, gives you a bonus to Diplomacy or lets you use Arcana instead of Diplomacy and says something akin to "_You weave magic into your words, defusing a dangerous situation through the fine art of diplomacy."  _No duration and nothing about deducing a hostile invasion of your autonomy by a magical compulsion and becoming hostile.  More apropos is the Ritual version of the spell (Call to Friendship).  It has duration and its effect and duration depends on your Diplomacy check.  On memory and behavior post-Ritual, it says; _"Once you complete the ritual, make a Diplomacy check to determine the  effect it has on the target. Once the ritual’s duration expires, the  target’s attitude returns to normal. The ritual does not affect the  target’s memory in any way."  _Post-ritual target's attitude reverts to normal and memory is unaffected.




I'm not a 4e expert, off the top.  This, however, seems much more subtle, enhancing diplomacy rather than a Charm effect.



Manbearcat said:


> For what its worth, I just asked a few folks who are not gamers what they intuitively felt the situation would be post-charm.  The consensus was that the target might be conflicted/puzzled if, at the end of the duration, they were doing something or in a place that they never would have been in otherwise (eg all of a sudden they are in a tavern that they outwardly hated or vowed to never go to).  If this were the case, depending on their intelligence or understanding of spellcasting, they maybe should get some kind of check to surmise the truth of things.  Beyond that though, no reflexive deduction or hostility.  I don't recall if that was my intuitive response to the spell when I first started playing but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.




Asking anyone "how would magic work" seems unlikely to generate a consensus at all.  Of course, one other aspect not discussed is whether a target would blame a very persuasive Diplomacy check on a magical efect, even when it was not magical.  "I would never have willingly done that - I must have been ensorcelled".  Too late to Detect whether there was a magical effect, as the spell has expired, so tough to prove or disprove.



pemerton said:


> That must be why I didn't assert this.






pemerton said:


> For instance, if the player succeeds in persuading the NPC to do XYZ, then the NPC can't change his/her mind even if the GM thinks that that would be "better for the story", or would be likely given the NPC's personality (the NPC's personality should have been a factor in the prior action resolution, and so already taken full account of).




Your statement sounded to me like the social skill must resolve a conflict once and for all ("the NPC can't change his/her mind") for such rules to equate to the narrative control of magic.  I must have interpreted that statement more strongly than you intended it.



pemerton said:


> EDIT: If the only way that players of  fighters and rogues have to effectively change the narrative space is to have their PCs kill things, then they will take that approach. This has been a recurring issue in D&D.




This is not limited to non-spellcasters.  If all spared prisoners eventually return to threaten the party again, they stop taking prisoners.  When every (most? some?) NPC they befriend betrays them, they start treating them all as enemy combatants.  Once, a villager turned out to be a lycanthrope, so  now every NPC we meet has to submit to a "silver manacles" test before we will extend any trust to him.  And we pour Holy Water on him.  And touch cold iron to his flesh.  Hey, what do you mean the villagers aren't friendly to us?

When every attempt at mundane diplomacy (or every one that has any real meaning to the game) is overridden by the GM based on NPC personality and role playing, the players quickly learn not to bother with mundane diplomacy.  If all prisoners are silent from fear of their ultimate master, the players learn not to bother taking prisoners, much less questioning them.



Tuft said:


> And, as a second "of course",  this does not apply to boring old plus items (+1 to hit, damage, AC). IIRC, earlier in the thread it was mentioned that combat performance pressure might force the fighter into picking "being better at fighting" feats over non-combat/narrative control ones. The same applies to magic items. The fighter might feel forced to choose to upgrade his sword from +4 to +5 over getting that Passwall Ring, either by his own expectations, or by peer pressure.
> 
> So, to get the fighter to *actually pick* narrative control abilities, whether it is new class abilities, or old magic item abilities, how do we relieve that pressure? By limiting free selection, forcing certain build options? (In fact, we have DMs out there who, I assume unintentionally, exclude the fighter from "narrative control" style items, simply by limiting available treasure...)




Once again, the fighter who devotes all available resources to enhancing his combat abilities now complains that he doesn't have non-combat abilities.  So trade off some of your combat enhancers for some non-combat enhancers.  The game allows a highly focused character - the players choose how narrowly to focus.  If the fighter took a low DEX, specialized in a two handed melee weapon with numerous feats, and spent all his wealth upgrading that weapon, would we feel sorry or him when he complains that he doesn't have a great AC and isn't very useful in ranged combat?  I suspect most of us would point out that every choice he made leads to him being a one trick pony.  So why do we feel sorry for his being ineffective out of combat when he dedicates no resources whatsoever to effectiveness anywhere but in combat?

That's probably a main question we should be asking here - is the goal to provide *options* for these martial characters to have more influence outside combat, is it to *add abilities* that provide that influence while not requiring any reduction in their combat abilities, or is it to *force* these out of combat abilities on them.  Because I suspect if we gave them a series of abilities designed to enhance out of combat influence, a portion would want the option of trading off these non-combat abilities for more combat abilities.  Then, a portion of them would still complain they are ineffectual outside combat because "the game forces them" to devote all their resources to combat skills.

Maybe the question is how the GM goes about making it clear to players that the game will include non-combat challenges, so being an expert in "just combat" will mean you are bored/frustrated by out of combat challenges, just like a character with tons of skills and non-combat abilities will provide little assistance in combat.  Unfortunatey, what some see as "encouraging a balance", others perceive as "punishing the player" for not designing to the GM's desires or "removing player choice" from character design.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 30, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Because I suspect if we gave them a series of abilities designed to enhance out of combat influence, a portion would want the option of trading off these non-combat abilities for more combat abilities.  Then, a portion of them would still complain they are ineffectual outside combat because "the game forces them" to devote all their resources to combat skills.




My suspicion too. Ran into something similar just recently, in a campaign I play in. 

My DM usually says that "too deadly campaigns kills roleplaying". Think that applies to non-combat abilities too, wherever there is a choice.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 30, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> The more I think about this the more I think we might be going about this backwards. Instead of looking at what area of narrative space martial characters (and even casters) have influence and control over, what if we looked at what spaces the DM can reasonably release control over.




There are two ways to release narrative control to the players. First, you can make them co-authors of the story, with the power to introduce their own plot elements and to dictate (or at least suggest) world events. I'll call this author stance. Second, we can give them concrete resources to change events, such as an army, a spell, the ability to bypass any lock or other in-character power. I'll call this actor stance. These two approaches are wildly different. 

As an example of author stance powers, in the Price Valiant RPG (which takes it's setting from in Hal Foster's Prince Valiant comic, in Arthurian Europe), there is an ability named "Rescue by Lancelot". When used, sir Lancelot happens to cross your path on one of his innumerable quests, solves whatever immediate problem you are in (if it is of a military nature) and then moves on. Sir Lancelot appears _deux ex machina_ and solves the problem at the *player's* urging. The player character does nothing.

The way I read you is that you think we should give players authorial control. Did I get this right? It runs very much counter to what I perceive as the DnD tradition. Not saying it's wrong, just that it is a big step. So far this thread has just skirted the edge of author-stance abilities, and some posters have said this is already going to far. And for DnD, I tend to agree. I think that for DnD we should focus on actor-stance abilities. I'm completely open to discussing author-stance abilities, but they should be clearly labeled as such to avoid attracting the ire of DnD traditionalist.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> There are two ways to release narrative control to the players. First, you can make them co-authors of the story, with the power to introduce their own plot elements and to dictate (or at least suggest) world events. I'll call this author stance. Second, we can give them concrete resources to change events, such as an army, a spell, the ability to bypass any lock or other in-character power. I'll call this actor stance. These two approaches are wildly different.
> 
> As an example of author stance powers, in the Price Valiant RPG (which takes it's setting from in Hal Foster's Prince Valiant comic, in Arthurian Europe), there is an ability named "Rescue by Lancelot". When used, sir Lancelot happens to cross your path on one of his innumerable quests, solves whatever immediate problem you are in (if it is of a military nature) and then moves on. Sir Lancelot appears _deux ex machina_ and solves the problem at the *player's* urging. The player character does nothing.
> 
> The way I read you is that you think we should give players authorial control. Did I get this right? It runs very much counter to what I perceive as the DnD tradition. Not saying it's wrong, just that it is a big step. So far this thread has just skirted the edge of author-stance abilities, and some posters have said this is already going to far. And for DnD, I tend to agree. I think that for DnD we should focus on actor-stance abilities. I'm completely open to discussing author-stance abilities, but they should be clearly labeled as such to avoid attracting the ire of DnD traditionalist.




Ideally it would be the former but even within the actor stance there still needs to be some assurance of results regardless of the DM. 

If I want to use Teleport, I don't mind a dice roll to determine success, but it should determine success, even if it is a difficult number, regardless of the barriers. If the use of the player resource requires DM approval then I'm not sure it qualifies as a narrative tool. Which makes me ask the question, which areas are DMs willing to give up that approval?

There is a difference I think between rules arbitrating a result and the DM arbitrating the result. In player stance, there still needs to be assurance that any given action will have a pre-determined result (failure means it didn't happen, success means it did; as opposed to failure means it didn't happen, success is up to the DM). 

I personally am not looking for an author stance abilities (it's the reason I don't use hero points, action points, etc in D&D, they don't belong), but there should be some measure of certainty that we a resource is used, it's result can be measured by the rules. D&D has traditionally left those results vague and relied on the DM to be the arbitrator of the results.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 30, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> Which makes me ask the question, which areas are DMs willing to give up that approval?




It depends on playstyle, of course, but in my opionion a good DM can give good players alot of control. And I don't really see that there is a big difference between magical and mundane narrative control here.

In a sandbox control, the DM is giving out a lot of control almost by default. 

In a story game, once the players have picked up on the story, they should be interested in pursuing said story. As long as that is what they do, the DM can give them a lot of narrative control. The issue only comes up if the players want to derail the story. And if they really want to do that, no amount of DM control can really prevent it - it is a table issue, not a game issue. An example happened to me in Dragonlance Module 2 - the PCs are in an inn when the agents of evil bust the door. Instead of fighting the, and leading the villagers to safety, the cleric player wanted to use Plane Shift and to go heaven to avoid the problem. Well, let's just say the angels in the reception were NOT pleased. Another example was in the first part of the Skull & Shackles adventure path; the players are supposed to strike back against bullying officers, but the party fighter has no problem with the oppressive system and suffered in quiet, remaining a loyal underling. It really takes no magic to dodge a linear plot.

In kick in the door style play, I suppose the DM wants to confine narrative control to the dungeon. If the players want to rewrite the rules of the locale, the DM might be able to roll with it, but sometimes will want to say no. And this applies to spells and other abilities equally. For example, in a trapped kobold warren, using Control Water to drown the entire warren might be just as bad as using the mundane power to call a mob of peasants to "clear" all the traps by triggering them. Overall, this kind of play style probably has the least room for narrative control, but that applies equally to spells and other abilities.

*Edit:* Abusing actor stance powers?


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2013)

> It depends on playstyle, of course, but in my opionion a good DM can give good players alot of control. And I donätreally see that there is a big difference between magical and mundane narrative control here.




This is the key  [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] and I have been talking about, albeit from different sides of the fence.

When narrative control is released by the DM then there is no difference between magical and mundane source for the outcome


----------



## Starfox (Jun 30, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> When narrative control is released by the DM then there is no difference between magical and mundane source for the power




I agree, and that's why I want to try and level the playing field by inventing narrative powers for martial characters. I think we're all aboard that train -  I even not-so-subtly asked the people who profess the opposing view to leave the thread earlier.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I agree, and that's why I want to try and level the playing field by inventing narrative powers for martial characters. I think we're all aboard that train -  I even not-so-subtly asked the people who profess the opposing view to leave the thread earlier.




I still feel there is a thread of "if the DM gives permission" then the " player can have so e narrative control". If that is the case, there has to be a reliable exchange mechanic so the players know they can act when they want to (otherwise it is the "Mother may I" condition)

In D&D traditionally this narrative exchange mechanic has existed with magical effects, be that spells or extraordinary abilities (such as lay on hands), namely a spell slot or a use per day.

in expanding to other narrative devices it seems reasonable that an exchange mechanic needs to be in place for specific "powers" ala 4e, or general story impact such as fate points or hero points triggering "aspects" (effectively loosely defined scenarios where narrative power is appropriate) - Aspect: "I know a guy", a player can trigger his aspect "I know a guy" when the player is attempting to intimidate, bargain, persuade, even unlock a clue. 

I think a "trait" track along side a "feat" track gets us here, were the tracks are non-exchangeable between each other. The traits then have their triggers, i.e. when they are narratively appropriate, and a usage metric (uses, tokens, slots)

Of course, for many this ends up feeling like 4e


----------



## Starfox (Jun 30, 2013)

Such abilities can mot easily enter the game in three forms; as stunts, as feats, or as class abilities.

As stunts, anyone can do them, given they have the skills to make it believable. We discussed that earlier.

As feats/class abilities, only those who have taken the feat can do this reliably, or at least the feat facilitates the action greatly. This can be great for some kinds of abilities, but severely limits the "stuint space" available to everyone. Leadership is an example of such a feat, as is the rogue's Trapfinding and the ranger's Hide in Plain Sight.

A good method of working on this (that I've used making my homebrew) is to first think up what what any skilled hero should reasonably be able to do - this is the stunt. The you can invent feats/class abilities that enhances the ability further.

Example: The infiltration ability discussed earlier.

DC: Highest Spot among opposition.

Time: One hour.

Roll: Pick four of the following skills. Climb, Stealth, Disguise, Knowledge (local), Profession (valet or cook) (etc, etc). Test each skill against the the DC. One success lets you carry out the infiltration. Each failed roll adds a complication (yadda yadda).

Failure: You are discovered as a freeboter and forcibly ejected out of the castle, taking 2d6 damage in the process.


Feat: Infiltrator

You can do an infiltration stunt in 15 minutes (instead of the normal hour) and get a +4 bonus on all related die rolls.


*Edit*: This is more an example of an outline that a concrete suggestion for how this is to work in detail.



Warbringer said:


> the "Mother may I"




Only now I understood this expression - I read it as "Mother May" and wondered if this was a literary reference to a a character named May. ^^


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> I still feel there is a thread of "if the DM gives permission" then the " player can have so e narrative control". If that is the case, there has to be a reliable exchange mechanic so the players know they can act when they want to (otherwise it is the "Mother may I" condition)




I personally disagree. As Starfox noted, this goes against the traditional aspect of D&D, which is that a player's agency in the game world is restricted to their character, and no further. Their character can attempt anything, to be sure, but the results are dependent on the GM. We want martial _characters_ to have more narrative abilities, but I wonder if that's different than the _players_ having them.

Personally, I'm more in favor of having greater narrative capabilities for the players come at the expense (if it has to be at the expense of something, which I'm not sure it does) of the dice, rather than the GM. I suspect that that's the difference between the aforementioned "authorial stance" and the "actor stance" - the former moves into an area usually managed by the GM, whereas the latter moves into an area usually managed by the dice.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 30, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I personally disagree. As Starfox noted, this goes against the traditional aspect of D&D, which is that a player's agency in the game world is restricted to their character, and no further. Their character can attempt anything, to be sure, but the results are dependent on the GM. We want martial _characters_ to have more narrative abilities, but I wonder if that's different than the _players_ having them.
> 
> Personally, I'm more in favor of having greater narrative capabilities for the players come at the expense (if it has to be at the expense of something, which I'm not sure it does) of the dice, rather than the GM. I suspect that that's the difference between the aforementioned "authorial stance" and the "actor stance" - the former moves into an area usually managed by the GM, whereas the latter moves into an area usually managed by the dice.




D&D does have them, they just tend to be restricted to spells. Adding them to martials is a change to martial classes, not to D&D. The question is whether they should be added to martials in the same mechanical mess that they are in spells, or should they be added in a different way (which may indicate that the way they are handled in spells needs to change to match, although D&D has always had a mess of different systems, so that's not against the tradition to have them both function differently). 

I would like to see dice as the arbitrator of narrative influence. I think that's the only way to successful implement it in D&D, without changing the game in dramatic ways. But there are spells that affect the narrative without dice rolls. Should these change to match?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> D&D does have them, they just tend to be restricted to spells.




Just to be clear, by "them" you mean narrative capabilities that aren't restricted to the actions of the player's character? Because in that case, spells aren't an exception to that - it's the spellcasting _character_ that actuates the spell; the effect affects more people than just the character, but it's still clearly based on the undertakings of the character themselves.

Contrast that with playing a "Lancelot shows up" card, which is divorced utterly from the character's own abilities. That's what I meant by separating the player's agency from the character's abilities.


----------



## N'raac (Jun 30, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Contrast that with playing a "Lancelot shows up" card, which is divorced utterly from the character's own abilities. That's what I meant by separating the player's agency from the character's abilities.




[Devil's Advocate]What if the "Lancelot Shows Up" ability is a manifestation of the PC being extremely lucky, for reasons he may not fully understand?  If we refuse to allow that aspect of "luck", do we also prohibit the "Luck Feats" from Complete Scoundrel?  Is it somehow made more tolerable if I define his good fortune being the fact he has Celestial Beings watching out for him due to a distant Celestial ancestor (just like this might explain a Sorcerer or Favoured Soul's abilities)?[/Devil's Advocate]

I don't know the answer, but given many clerical spells draw in divine intercession, why can't a character who gets divine intercession without requesting it by means of spells, or even knowing that is why he gets these benefits, exist?


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 30, 2013)

N'raac said:


> [Devil's Advocate]...[/Devil's Advocate]
> 
> I don't know the answer, but given many clerical spells draw in divine intercession, why can't a character who gets divine intercession without requesting it by means of spells, or even knowing that is why he gets these benefits, exist?




Personally I don't see that as being much different to a spell. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but it does seem to fall into the "because magic" category.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I personally disagree. As Starfox noted, this goes against the traditional aspect of D&D, which is that a player's agency in the game world is restricted to their character, and no further.




Yeah, but the whole point of this discussion, I thought, were methods of giving players agency in character. That does not mean restricting them to class descriptors, but opening up new methods of creating them.

There is a reason that feats, skill checks, and stunts do not grant the feeling of narrative control (outside of spellcasters) pre 4e.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I would like to see dice as the arbitrator of narrative influence. I think that's the only way to successful implement it in D&D, without changing the game in dramatic ways. But there are spells that affect the narrative without dice rolls. Should these change to match?




I think ultimately dice rolling becomes a method of getting as high a bonus as possible, then we end up with situations that the DC is so high only certain characters can even try, turning in into a de facto "fail" for anyone else.. (And for me, a 1 in 20 chance is not fun, nor smart scenario design, unless you have a great fail forward mechanic)


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jun 30, 2013)

pemerton said:


> That must be why I didn't assert this.




Just to clarify, my comment was purely in regard to the stated interpretation. It certainly wasn't intended as any kind of personal attack.

With hindsight I clearly could have expressed this point better.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2013)

N'raac said:


> [Devil's Advocate]What if the "Lancelot Shows Up" ability is a manifestation of the PC being extremely lucky, for reasons he may not fully understand?  If we refuse to allow that aspect of "luck", do we also prohibit the "Luck Feats" from Complete Scoundrel?  Is it somehow made more tolerable if I define his good fortune being the fact he has Celestial Beings watching out for him due to a distant Celestial ancestor (just like this might explain a Sorcerer or Favoured Soul's abilities)?[/Devil's Advocate]
> 
> I don't know the answer, but given many clerical spells draw in divine intercession, why can't a character who gets divine intercession without requesting it by means of spells, or even knowing that is why he gets these benefits, exist?




I'm not saying that such a manner of granting narrative control isn't workable, just that I personally don't find it desirable. It's entirely possible to have mechanical abilities that grant narrative agency happen for reasons that are - in the context of the game world - divorced from the character's abilities. I simply find them to be unfulfilling. 

The reason I don't care for them is because they seem to portray the character as achieving success (in whatever narrative option he exercises) for reasons that have nothing to do with personal ability. For me, a heroic character is one with heroic abilities to successfully change a situation into one where victory can be achieved, rather than it simply happening for external reasons.

Now, I do have some latitude here - I have no problem with characters receiving something like a luck bonus to checks, as these are small enough mechanical bonuses that they need not have any conspicuous analogue in the context of the game world; characters do not "see" a bout of good luck happening when they do something like swing a sword or dodge a lightning bolt.

However, narrative options seem to me to be (very) conspicuous by their very nature. Doing something like convincing an enemy to stand down or circumventing a stone wall is an issue where a stroke of luck that solves the problem is going to be noticeable. Now, by itself, that's not really a problem - plenty of stories have such monumental strokes of good fortune happening. 

The problem is that a role-playing game doesn't have the same type of narrative progression that stories do. Player-characters tend to spam their abilities over and over (if not each round, then still with some degree of regularity over a longer period of time). It's one thing to have a one-time stroke of good luck happen when Lancelot shows up to solve your problem. It's another thing when he shows up for the twelfth time to do so, because you get one "Lancelot shows up" card per game session, and so why not use it? Major strokes of good fortune that occur with some regular frequency strain the narrative.

Of course, as I said above, that's just my take on it. Unto itself, it works - I just don't care for the manner in which it does so.



			
				Warbringer said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the whole point of this discussion, I thought, were methods of giving players agency in character. That does not mean restricting them to class descriptors, but opening up new methods of creating them.




Strictly speaking, it doesn't mean either of those things. It means discussing different ways of doing so, both in their pros and their cons. I'm simply pointing out what I feel is a con for that particular idea.



			
				Warbringer said:
			
		

> There is a reason that feats, skill checks, and stunts do not grant the feeling of narrative control (outside of spellcasters) pre 4e.




That reason is "because they were written that way" - it has nothing to do with the inherent nature of feats, skill checks, and stunts.


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> That reason is "because they were written that way" - it has nothing to do with the inherent nature of feats, skill checks, and stunts.




This is borderline meaningless without further explanation and discussion. I have no idea what you mean by "inherent" in a tabletop RPG where written rules is how design intent is communicated


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> This is borderline meaningless without further explanation and discussion. I have no idea what you mean by "inherent" in a tabletop RPG where written rules is how design intent is communicated




You stated that there is a reason why pre-4E feats, skills, and stunts didn't have narrative options. As you didn't explain what that reason was, it sounded to me like you were saying they had some sort of inherent lack of ability to grant those things, an idea that I was disagreeing with.


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> You stated that there is a reason why pre-4E feats, skills, and stunts didn't have narrative options. As you didn't explain what that reason was, it sounded to me like you were saying they had some sort of inherent lack of ability to grant those things, an idea that I was disagreeing with.




Go read the rest of my posts in this thread.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> Go read the rest of my posts in this thread.




I read them. Your unstated reason is not self-evident, so perhaps you could say what it is?


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

...


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> Well if I failed to communicate my position in previous posts, I guess not




I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. You're saying that you won't/can't explain your reason for why feats, skills, and stunts in pre-4E D&D had no narrative options?


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. You're saying that you won't/can't explain your reason for why feats, skills, and stunts in pre-4E D&D had no narrative options?




Tried to delete because it was snarky reply by me 

The basic premise of the thread is that the rules are lacking for non-spellcasters.

There reasons I think that current rules fail are

Skills: not enough points for non-spellcasters (rogues excepted), penalty for cross-classing, skill optimization creates effectively autofail for non-specialists

Feats: Non-combat and combat being in the same pool generally means that combat classes optimize to combat rather than put into non-combat, especially when the benefit is often a +2 skill bonus to an already low skill

Spells as narrative tokens: Spellcasters don't have to make a decision to optimize into combat or non-combat, or if they do, its a day by day decision. They can effectively change their point impact on the narrative by changing spell choice. But more importantly, spells, or rather slots, are a token exchange to effect the narrative directly, some that feats and skills don't provide in their current form.

4e solved this part of the problem by far more generous skill construction and all character abilities as a narrative tokens (AEDU)

That's my opinion anyway...


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 1, 2013)

N'raac said:


> If we refuse to allow that aspect of "luck", do we also prohibit the "Luck Feats" from Complete Scoundrel?[/Devil's Advocate]



I do.



> Is it somehow made more tolerable if I define his good fortune being the fact he has Celestial Beings watching out for him due to a distant Celestial ancestor (just like this might explain a Sorcerer or Favoured Soul's abilities)?



Yes.



> I don't know the answer, but given many clerical spells draw in divine intercession, why can't a character who gets divine intercession without requesting it by means of spells, or even knowing that is why he gets these benefits, exist?



Personally, I'm all for those sorts of abilities, in principle. I do, however, think that there needs to be at least a vague justification. For example, a (3.5) warlock's powers come from a pretty vague source; the player may or may not have made some kind of pact, his ancestor may or may not have done so, or may or may not be a demon. But supernatural clearly plays into it somewhere. Just putting a [luck] tag doesn't do it for me, and luck feats just aren't very good feats.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 1, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> There reasons I think that current rules fail are
> 
> Skills: not enough points for non-spellcasters (rogues excepted), penalty for cross-classing, skill optimization creates effectively autofail for non-specialists



Agreed.



> Feats: Non-combat and combat being in the same pool generally means that combat classes optimize to combat rather than put into non-combat, especially when the benefit is often a +2 skill bonus to an already low skill



I think it's the same as above. Not enough feats, not good enough feats as well.



> Spells as narrative tokens: Spellcasters don't have to make a decision to optimize into combat or non-combat, or if they do, its a day by day decision. They can effectively change their point impact on the narrative by changing spell choice. But more importantly, spells, or rather slots, are a token exchange to effect the narrative directly, some that feats and skills don't provide in their current form.



This I don't agree with. Spells are tricks. Some spellcasters do have to make some choices about whether they focus on combat or not.

I think the solutions are pretty clear in this paradigm: fix the existing skill and feat systems, and make the spellcasters make similar choices to the nonspellcasters.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> Skills: not enough points for non-spellcasters (rogues excepted), penalty for cross-classing, skill optimization creates effectively autofail for non-specialists




I think that this one is probably the easiest to fix, simply because the skill system is something unto itself, rather than being a class feature. Given that, it's easy to tweak the skill points given to various classes, and the cross-class penalties. The DCs may be a bit trickier, but it's still not that difficult to adjust them.

Personally, I think that part of the problem here is that modifiers to the skill system allow for runaway bonus inflation. Taking care of that would likely solve half the problem.



> _Feats: Non-combat and combat being in the same pool generally means that combat classes optimize to combat rather than put into non-combat, especially when the benefit is often a +2 skill bonus to an already low skill_




I suspect that tagging feats would help here (e.g. labeling them as "combat," "social," or "exploratory") might work here, and then mandating that feats gained at certain levels be of certain types.

Alternately, when feats would normally be gained, the characters instead gain one feat of *each* type, rather than having to pick one of the mandated type.



> _Spells as narrative tokens: Spellcasters don't have to make a decision to optimize into combat or non-combat, or if they do, its a day by day decision. They can effectively change their point impact on the narrative by changing spell choice. But more importantly, spells, or rather slots, are a token exchange to effect the narrative directly, some that feats and skills don't provide in their current form._



_

Well, bear in mind that this is true on paper, but less so in play. There are limitations here that come up in the course of game-play that act as a greater limit on the practical ability of spells to influence the narrative than show from a theoretical construction of what a spellcaster can do.

That said, [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] comes down pretty hard on people who talk about spellcasters in this thread. If we want to keep talking about this, I suggest tapping Z or R twice to do a barrel roll._


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Agreed.
> This I don't agree with. Spells are tricks. Some spellcasters do have to make some choices about whether they focus on combat or not.




Some do, some don't, but in general they have more scope to interact with the narrative; or at the very least more flexibility


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

> Personally, I think that part of the problem here is that modifiers to the skill system allow for runaway bonus inflation. Taking care of that would likely solve half the problem.




True, change unbalanced skill point allocation, cross-class requirements (ie full access) and the base gain  model and it might work 



> Alternately, when feats would normally be gained, the characters instead gain one feat of each type, rather than having to pick one of the mandated type.




There was any idea about feats and traits floated a while ago I  like; basically what you're saying here.



> Well, bear in mind that this is true on paper, but less so in play.




For sure there are limitations, but they are less sever than no ability to change your narrative impact. That is a flexibility the "S" class gets


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> even within the actor stance there still needs to be some assurance of results regardless of the DM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there should be some measure of certainty that we a resource is used, it's result can be measured by the rules. D&D has traditionally left those results vague and relied on the DM to be the arbitrator of the results.





Warbringer said:


> I still feel there is a thread of "if the DM gives permission" then the " player can have so e narrative control". If that is the case, there has to be a reliable exchange mechanic so the players know they can act when they want to (otherwise it is the "Mother may I" condition)



This is exactly what I'm talking about by "finality" in conflict resolution.



N'raac said:


> Your statement sounded to me like the social skill must resolve a conflict once and for all ("the NPC can't change his/her mind") for such rules to equate to the narrative control of magic.  I must have interpreted that statement more strongly than you intended it.



I did say what you attribute to me here.

But the way you paraphrased that is as follows:


N'raac said:


> So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?



I don't see the relationship between "the social skill must resolve a conflict once and for all" - ie finality in conflict resolution - and "one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for ilfe".

There are two obvious points of disconnect, both of which I hope are obvious if one keeps in mind the example of skill challenges, or Duel of Wits from BW, or social conflict from The Dying Earth RPG, or the infliction of mental and emotional stress or complications in MHRP, etc.

The first is that none of those systems uses "one successful Diplomacy check". Like the D&D combat system that I mentioned in my post, they are complex resolution systems in which the participants have the opportunity to alter the fiction (and hence shape the outcome) in the course of resolution.

The second is that "A resolving a conflict with B" does not entail that B is A's slave for life. All these systems involve, either overtly or as an inherent feature of their resolution, the setting of stakes - this informs both initial "credibility" tests on framing (ie some things are just impossible, whether for ingame reasons or metagame genre reasons), and also the details of the resolution (including but not limited to difficulty). For instance, persuading the bandit guard that s/he should let the PCs enter the bandit camp without raising the alarm is an instance of a social conflict which lends itself well to finality in resolution. It has nothing to do with anyone making the bandit guard a slave for life.

A third, less obvious point is that finality itself has a duration and work arounds. For instance, hit point damage in D&D can be healed. In MHRP there are rules for recovery from complications and stress. In BW there are rules for overcoming the result of a Duel of Wits. But the key thing about each of these is that they are not simply subject to GM fiat. The players know what they are - for instance, in MHRP a complication typically lasts until the end of the scene, and so the GM can't have the bandit guard raise the hue and cry until the infiltration scene is resolved. So the GM can frame the following scene as one in which the PCs are being pursued by the bandits, but _at that point the PCs have already resolved their infilitration_, and have got whatever they are going to get out of it.



Starfox said:


> There are two ways to release narrative control to the players. First, you can make them co-authors of the story, with the power to introduce their own plot elements and to dictate (or at least suggest) world events. I'll call this author stance. Second, we can give them concrete resources to change events, such as an army, a spell, the ability to bypass any lock or other in-character power. I'll call this actor stance. These two approaches are wildly different.



You have missed a third way, which is in my view highly salient here. That is _director stance_, ie the authority to introduce new backstory outside the in-fiction "locus of control" enjoyed by the PC.

Here is an instance of backstory introduction by a player that is not director-stance at all: "When I was a kid I use to go fishing." It is not director stance because it does not deal with anything outside the "locus of control" of the PC (ie the PC, as a kid, was in a position to choose to go fishing). This would be controversial, I think, only if it contradicted already-established backstory or genre (eg the game is a Dark Sun game, or is a Greyhawk game in which we've already established that the PC grew up among the nomads of the Bright Desert).

Here is an instance of backstory introduction by a player that, in D&D, I think would normally be regarded as uncontroversial even though it takes place in director stance: "My guy was born in Saltmarsh and used to go fishing with his dad, who was a fisherman." This is director stance because the PC does not control where s/he was born, nor the occupation of his/her parents. Note that in RQ a player does not enjoy this degree of director stance (parental trade is rolled on a random table). And in D&D this can start to become controversial if (for instance) the player wants to stipulate that s/he was born in the royal palace to the ruler of all the land.

And now here is the sort of director stance that is used in the RPGs I'm aware of that give players of non-magical PCs serious narrative space options: "My guy sneaks up to the bandit guarding the gate, and when I'm pretty close I step out and say "Sshh! Don't say anything - I know all about the trouble your parents are in back home, and I can sort that out for them as long as you don't sound the alarm!" Btw, I'm using my [insert ability name here] - I recognise this guard as the child of [insert description of parents who live in PC's home town, and explanation of the trouble that they're in]."

Resolving this sort of director stance play has two dimensions - first there's establishing the truth of the player's desired specification of backstory, and then there's resolving the conflict (social conflict, in my example; but if the backstory is about the existence of a secret door into a palace, the conflict might not be social but exploratory) in which the player's PC wants to trade on that backstory. The first can be done via skill rolls (as in BW, via Wise checks or Circles checks) or via sheer stipulation based on a limited points resource (this is how MHRP does it, with the rules for Resource creation). The second then needs some sort of conflict resolution mechanic of the sort I've already mentionted upthread and in this post. In D&D it is almost certainly going to be dice-based, although      [MENTION=14391]Warbringer[/MENTION] upthread has suggested the possibility of doing this in a points/slot-based way (eg at stage 1 I expend resources to make it true in the fiction that the bandit guard has the "aspect" _worried about his parent's troubles_; at stage 2 I expend resources to "compel" that aspect, establishing that because of those worries, and my promise to help resolve them, the guard will let me into the bandit camp without raising the alarm).

EDIT: A further complication with Stage 1 done via dice rolls is whether the resolution happens ingame, or purely at the metagame level. BW does a bit of both, but tends to favour the ingame approach: so when "my guy" approaches the bandit guard to bargain over the fate of the guard's parents, if the skill roll to establish the truth of the fiction is a failure, that means that the PC had a false belief. And tthe GM can therefore have the guard reply "Huh? With the money I'm making here I've already set my parents up for life - I guess you're working from out-of-date information! Hey, everyone, we've got intruders here!"


----------



## Starfox (Jul 1, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> The reason I don't care for them is because they seem to portray the character as achieving success (in whatever narrative option he exercises) for reasons that have nothing to do with personal ability. For me, a heroic character is one with heroic abilities to successfully change a situation into one where victory can be achieved, rather than it simply happening for external reasons.




[Anecdote]
In Maid, my character for some time had Luck as her highest attribute. As any stunt in Maid can be based of any attribute the GM agrees to, even in combat, this meant that her combat actions became stuff like "I dodge the falling tree, but he doesn't", stipulating a tree would suddenly fall on us. My character didn't really do much - she was just stupidly lucky (on the level of gods).
[/anecdote]

Another way to handle player control of the world is to like Maid - have a Luck attribute, that lets a player introduce a new plot element "by chance" by making a high enough Luck roll. 

Player: I look for a secret door.
DM: Roll Perception. (The DM knows there is no such door there the roll would automatically fail)
Player: No, I want to roll Luck
DM: Eh... Hrm... Ok
Player: * Roll stupidly high on Luck
DM: You stumble into the wall... Click! apparently there is a trigger for a hidden door there!  * Makes a note in the scenario


----------



## Tuft (Jul 1, 2013)

Starfox said:


> [Anecdote]
> In Maid, my character for some time had Luck as her highest attribute. As any stunt in Maid can be based of any attribute the GM agrees to, even in combat, this meant that her combat actions became stuff like "I dodge the falling tree, but he doesn't", stipulating a tree would suddenly fall on us. My character didn't really do much - she was just stupidly lucky (on the level of gods).
> [/anecdote]
> 
> ...




As GM of said Maid campaign, I must say that I *do* love when the players mess with my stuff this way. Some of the best sessions were when I had to throw out my notes completely, and run the whole thing with by the seats of my pants improvisation. 

And [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] character has earned godlike levels of luck by years in that campaign.


----------



## Starfox (Jul 1, 2013)

pemerton said:


> You have missed a third way, which is in my view highly salient here. That is _director stance_, ie the authority to introduce new backstory outside the in-fiction "locus of control" enjoyed by the PC.




First, let me say I am cool with a player doing these kinds of stunts.

About "director stance", it is an interesting point. Not sure I see "director stance" as clear enough to stand on it's own tough. Instead I see cases of director stance falling under either author or actor stance. As for a PC digging out things of his own background... I consider that to be a part of that someone called the "Golden Box" earlier - the personal sphere that makes up the character's personality and background . It is stretching actor stance a bit (into method acting perhaps?) but I find it is still actor stance. It is not until the player tries to dictate the background of NPCs he meets that I feel that this becomes controversial - and slips over into author stance - even if just barely. 

But yes, there is a grey area here, with different people drawing the line differently. So, if we define "director stance" as the grey space between actor and author stance, I can accept that, but did we gain any clarity by introducing this new term?

PS: Is your "Locus of Control" the same as my recently picked up "Golden Box"? I'm not really familiar with either term.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Another way to handle player control of the world is to like Maid - have a Luck attribute, that lets a player introduce a new plot element "by chance" by making a high enough Luck roll.




That's probably the best way to handle this particular paradigm, as that helps to tie that sort of thing directly to the character, rather than the player. In this regard, it's like how some of the superheroes in contemporary comic books (whose names escape me at the moment) have the ability to consciously manipulate luck in their favor/against their enemies. A luck attribute isn't quite that explicit in the context of what's happening, but it's a larger step in that direction. It also helps to avoid the situation of relatively similar strokes of good fortune happening with regularity, to boot.

That said, it does have the problem of not just running at least somewhat counter to the "D&D tradition," but I wonder how much players would like it if the tone of the setting wasn't comedic in nature - something like this just seems to lend itself more to hijinks than heroism.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 1, 2013)

pemerton said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about by "finality" in conflict resolution.




As I said eariler, I cleary interpreted your "finality" to be more "final" than you intended.  I think "binding", rather than "final", might be a more appropriate term.  Your successful use of Diplomacy (whatever mechanics we adopt for same, be they the present one skill roll &D model, or some more granular social combat system) does not make the target your loyal friend for life, come what may, but it does mean the immediate objective of your diplomacy attempt is successful, and not either vetoed as "out of character" or eliminated before the benefits are realized (ie the guard does not have second thoughts and raise the alarm as you enter the camp) by a change of heart that effectively renders the initial success irrelevant.  

Adding to this, it also means that the abilities of the character (such as high interaction skills) have in game relevance.  The GM cannot decide that, since the player did not make a convincing speech, neither did the player.  The character's 17 roll + 13 bonus = 30 is determinative, and the player's lack of similar oratorical skills is irrelevant.  The reverse also applies - a brilliant and impassioned speech by the player combined with a 3 on the d20 and a -1 for 8 CHA and no ranks in social skills may, for example, indicate that the PC stuttered and encountered a "say it, don't spray it" moment in his impassioned efforts to persuade the Earl to see things his way.  The PC's get abilities dictated by the in-game resources spent on those resources, not the metagame player skills.  I'm all for that - a 375 pound couch potato who has to stop for a break climbing the stairs can play a battle-hardened warrior or an agile acrobat, and the stuttering introvert should be just as able to play a smooth talking social butterly or a suave, persuasive diplomat.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 1, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> Some do, some don't, but in general they have more scope to interact with the narrative; or at the very least more flexibility



If you're talking about flexibility over a period of time, I'd say yes. Between spell memorization (for your divine casters and wizards) and the ability to acquire scrolls and such. However, I don't think that's generally true at any one time. If you have to react to a situation and can't prepare over time, I'd say your rogues and some of the more versatile martial characters have more flexibility.

And that is and odd dynamic. Again, I'd look at spells as tricks. Whether your magical characters _should_ have such a big swing based on how ready they are for a situation (or how lucky they are to have prepared for it) is an interesting question.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 1, 2013)

Nagol said:


> You can, but it does involve difficulty.
> 
> 
> The problem is as you've identified one of the continuum  Mundane <--------------------------------------------------------------------> Fantastical and where PC action can fall based on the game's overarching conception of what the character can affect.
> ...




Nagol, thanks for the post.  Good stuff in there and I don't think we're in stark disagreement but would you be so kind, when you have a moment, as to break out number 1.  I think it can be useful to the conversation that people are having and I might have some commentary.  Maybe you could cite some systems (or even theoretical anecdotes) you have in mind.  I don't want to comment here before I (erroneously) presume too much.


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 1, 2013)

N'raac said:


> As I said eariler, I cleary interpreted your "finality" to be more "final" than you intended.  I think "binding", rather than "final", might be a more appropriate term.  Your successful use of Diplomacy (whatever mechanics we adopt for same, be they the present one skill roll &D model, or some more granular social combat system) does not make the target your loyal friend for life, come what may, but it does mean the immediate objective of your diplomacy attempt is successful, and not either vetoed as "out of character" or eliminated before the benefits are realized (ie the guard does not have second thoughts and raise the alarm as you enter the camp) by a change of heart that effectively renders the initial success irrelevant.




Yea, I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was referencing the finality of the scene rather than finality of a longer period of time such as a day, week, or forever. It's funny how we all have different language and forget that others may not be thinking about events using that language, especially those of us who never went on with 4e and don't think of the game in scenes and encounters, even though we may use the idea instead of the language. It takes a bit getting used to, at least for me. I almost wish there was an easy guide someplace, like I have to use as a reference for text speak 

Binding is a better term and more accurate I believe.


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> If you're talking about flexibility over a period of time, I'd say yes. Between spell memorization (for your divine casters and wizards) and the ability to acquire scrolls and such.




Pretty much, and especially with 3e item creation. 

Rogues do have more in scene flexibility for sure, but there seems to be strong anecdotal evidence that spellcasters can quickly steal their (rogues) thunder


----------



## Starfox (Jul 1, 2013)

Fun as this discussion has been, I have to leave it - leaving for vacation (and bad internet) tomorrow. Have fun all!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 1, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Fun as this discussion has been, I have to leave it - leaving for vacation (and bad internet) tomorrow. Have fun all!



Clearly you have a greater ability to control your own narrative than I do.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2013)

Starfox said:


> In Maid, my character for some time had Luck as her highest attribute. As any stunt in Maid can be based of any attribute the GM agrees to, even in combat, this meant that her combat actions became stuff like "I dodge the falling tree, but he doesn't", stipulating a tree would suddenly fall on us. My character didn't really do much - she was just stupidly lucky





Starfox said:


> First, let me say I am cool with a player doing these kinds of stunts.



The example of the lucky PC is classic director stance! The PC is not making the tree fall down, so the player - in stipulating that the tree falls down - is doing something different from simply engaging the fiction via his/her PC's declared actions.



Starfox said:


> About "director stance", it is an interesting point. Not sure I see "director stance" as clear enough to stand on it's own tough. Instead I see cases of director stance falling under either author or actor stance.



The terminology I'm familiar with comes from The Forge:


In *Actor *stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. 


In *Author *stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called *Pawn *stance.)


In *Director *stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.




Starfox said:


> Is your "Locus of Control" the same as my recently picked up "Golden Box"? I'm not really familiar with either term.



I think I picked up the phrase from [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].

I'm using it to try and get at what some people mean by saying "I only want to play my character" or "I only want to change the gameworld by acting on it in character".

That a tree should fall over in combat due to a freak windstorm or some other coincidence is an example of something outside the PC's locus of control. That the PC should be bending over to tie her shoelaces at that very moment (so that the tree misses her but hits her enemy) is within the PC's locus of control.


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 1, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Fun as this discussion has been, I have to leave it - leaving for vacation (and bad internet) tomorrow. Have fun all!




Call yourself a gamer!! 

Enjoy your vacation


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 2, 2013)

> Originally Posted by *Starfox*
> 
> 
> Is your "Locus of Control" the same as my recently picked up "Golden Box"? I'm not really familiar with either term.






pemerton said:


> I think I picked up the phrase from  @_*Manbearcat*_ .
> 
> I'm using it to try and get at what some people mean by saying "I only want to play my character" or "I only want to change the gameworld by acting on it in character".
> 
> That a tree should fall over in combat due to a freak windstorm or some other coincidence is an example of something outside the PC's locus of control. That the PC should be bending over to tie her shoelaces at that very moment (so that the tree misses her but hits her enemy) is within the PC's locus of control.




Could be.  But I suspect, given your erudition and your field of work, that you were well aware of the term before I started applying it to metagame mechanics and actor vs author vs director stance.

Starfox, its a theory in personality psychology developed in the 1950s.  Roughly, the concept declares a person's "locus" (Latin for "location") is as either internal or  external focused.  Internal locus of control means the person believes that they are empowered to make decisions of which the outcomes are the primary output of their life's body of work/story; eg they can control their life/destiny.  External locus of control means that the person believes that their decisions and life are  controlled by environmental factors (entropy or interactions far, far beyond 1st or 2nd order with respect to their own decisions) which they cannot influence either at all or in any meaningful way; eg external factors control their life/destiny.

Pemerton's above is a great encapsulation.  I'll try another.  Consider a door in an infiltration challenge:

_*Actor Stance*_ - I interact with (open it/pick the lock/disarm the trap) the door.

_*Author Stance*_ - I know the guard on patrol.  He owes me a favor for clearing his debt with a dangerous bookmaker.  I call in the favor and have him leave the door unlocked and unguarded (this is either mechanically available to him now when it wouldn't have been otherwise or it automatically happens).

_*Director Stance*_ - I skulk up to the entryway.  I hear the sounds of rambunctious revelry down the hall.  The guards are in a drunken dice game and the sentry must have joined them.  In his haste he forgot to lock the door!

As you move down the stance track, character locus of control moves further from inner to outer while player locus of control moves further from outer to inner; and further toward metagame mechanics.


----------



## Starfox (Jul 2, 2013)

Perhaps I ought to read up on the Forge, but I hear just as much bad as good about it.

NN now!


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 2, 2013)

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]

example explanation of the different stances in play impact


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 2, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Perhaps I ought to read up on the Forge, but I hear just as much bad as good about it.



Indeed, but definition of terminology is at least common ground


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 2, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> _*Author Stance*_ - I know the guard on patrol.  He owes me a favor for clearing his debt with a dangerous bookmaker.  I call in the favor and have him leave the door unlocked and unguarded (this is either mechanically available to him now when it wouldn't have been otherwise or it automatically happens).
> 
> _*Director Stance*_ - I skulk up to the entryway.  I hear the sounds of rambunctious revelry down the hall.  The guards are in a drunken dice game and the sentry must have joined them.  In his haste he forgot to lock the door!




It's possible, if not highly likely, that Author and Director Stance mean something different to what I think they mean. With that caveat in mind, why is the author stance example given above not actually director stance? The player appears to be "determining aspects of the environment" just as much as in the second example.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Perhaps I ought to read up on the Forge, but I hear just as much bad as good about it.




From Mike Mearls


> The Forge is really the crucible for a lot of the real examination and exploration of the underlying structure of RPGs. Outside of the Forge, there are few other designers who think of games in a useful, interesting way.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.



All the innovative games I know of - HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP - either inspired The Forge (eg the first two mentioned) or were to some extent inspired by it (eg the latter two mentioned). I don't know FATE as well as I should, but I'd be gobsmacked if it's designers weren't steeped in design ideas that have come out of the Forge.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> It's possible, if not highly likely, that Author and Director Stance mean something different to what I think they mean. With that caveat in mind, why is the author stance example given above not actually director stance? The player appears to be "determining aspects of the environment" just as much as in the second example.



I agree that it is an instance of director stance.

"Author stance", at least as I use it (from The Forge) refers to choosing actions for one's PC _from the point of view of an author_ - ie "It would be pretty cool for my guy to do this awesome thing" - rather than from the point of view of the character him-/herself. In some playstyles, author stance then involves writing in a rationalising in-character motivation (eg "My guy loves to show off!"). When no such writing in takes place, we have that sub-category of author stance known as "pawn stance". (I think a lot of classic Gygaxian play was/is pawn stance.)

Although actor stance and author stance are logically/conceptually distinct, I think that in the reality of play they overlap hugely. Very few players are purely actor stance players, in part because most PCs aren't detailed enough in motivations and the like to answer all questions that come up as to how they would act, and in part because most people accomodate their play to fit within the external constraints and desires of the rest of the play group. And even purists who try to avoid being shaped by those external constraints often have a conception of what they want their PC to be (eg I'm playing a doomed anti-hero) which then shapes their choices from the "outside" in, rather than the "inside" out.

Director stance I think is also pretty common - I gave an example upthread, of deciding facts about your PC's birthplace and parentage - but I think is often seen as having to be sharply circumscribed. And I think this is what    [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example brings out. For instance, in his first example the resolution of the situation doesn't involve the player stipulating backstory beyond that which governs his/her PC and the guard with whom s/he is interacting. It's easy to imagine it being narrated as explanation for a successful Diplomacy, Bluff or perhaps even Thievery check - and although it does change the backstory in an interesting way, it has no further implications for resolution of the ongoing scenario.

Whereas the second example changes not only the backstory of the PC and the guard who is the present object of interaction, but also the disposition of all the other guards in the scenario. It goes well beyond action resolution into scene re-framing.

I think it is easy for D&D to incorporate examples like the first one (eg require successful skill checks, or the expenditure of Fate Points, or whatever else seems appropriate to ration them). I think it is a significantly bigger deal to incorporate examples like the second one, because you then have to build in a whole apparatus to mange these scene-reframing abilities so that players don't just reframe away all the challenges confronting their PCs.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jul 2, 2013)

So, if I'm following you - if the player says "I whisper a secret to the guard, because I recognize him from my past" that's author stance - but if the player says "the guard whispers a secret to me, because he recognizes me from my past" that's director stance?


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 2, 2013)

@*Mike Eagling*

Author stance is assumed when the person playing a character determines the character's decisions and  actions on a basis not solely borne of the character's priorities.  Generally, the actual player's priorities have primacy here and are independent of the  character's current, pre-established knowledge and perceptions.  You're most often establishing backstory for your character, leveraging it immediately and using it as a means to an end; that end may be "the rule of cool", "genre proliferation", or merely "flavor/color of mechanical resolution of a conflict".

Director stance is assumed when the person playing a character determines aspects of the environment  relative to the character in some fashion which is entirely separately from the  character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore, the  player has not only determined the character's actions, but also the context,  timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of  the world separate from the characters.

As @*pemerton* illuminates above, Director stance is pretty much a reframe of a situation or a challenge from adverse to benign.  Actor stance is typically narrative power enough to frame a situation with respect to genre conceits or how you would like it to come off but lacking in the absolute narrative authority of Director stance (as you're typically still subjected to fortune resolution) and lacking in the control of multiple vectors of the environment utterly external to your character.  Actor stance is basically just the narrative authority to say, "I'm Bob the Ranger (my character) and I'm Tracking the gnolls (interacting in the world in this way) and my Passive Perception is 25 (attending to the resolution of my task/action).  Do I find anything?"


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2013)

Savage Wombat said:


> So, if I'm following you - if the player says "I whisper a secret to the guard, because I recognize him from my past" that's author stance - but if the player says "the guard whispers a secret to me, because he recognizes me from my past" that's director stance?



I still regard them both as director stance - in both cases the player is doing something other than stipulate a choice/action for his/her PC.

Author stance, at least as The Forge uses that term, is not about _scope of player control over gameworld_. It's about _reasons for declaring PC actions_. If those reasons are derived from in-fiction considerations ("My guy wouldn't do that") you're in actor stance. If those reasons are derived from real-world considerations ("I want to play a guy who wouldn't do that") you're in author stance.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 2, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Nagol, thanks for the post.  Good stuff in there and I don't think we're in stark disagreement but would you be so kind, when you have a moment, as to break out number 1.  I think it can be useful to the conversation that people are having and I might have some commentary.  Maybe you could cite some systems (or even theoretical anecdotes) you have in mind.  I don't want to comment here before I (erroneously) presume too much.




The first example that springs to mind comes from an _Ars Magica_ campaign I ran.  We had grown tired of the troupe style of play and wanted to move back to a single character per player.  I adjusted the game by having each player create a Companion character, added a virtue allowing the purchase of magical arts, and halved the damage output of all forms of magic.  

In that edition of _Ars Magica_,  Companions could have up to 10 virtue points.  A Virtue is a character customisation tool that covers the equivalent of Feats/class features in D&D and were only granted during character creation though specific Virtues can be awarded during play.  Casting minimal magic (one form out of 10 and one technique out of 5) costs 3.  Buying the entire list of magical arts cost 12 so was beyond any character even if no further Virtues were desired -- and there were many desirable virtues.  This change allowed the narrative space for magic to remain open to the players, but limited any individual character.

The damage reduction shifted magic in combat away from direct damage towards defense, inquiry, and buffs.  It increased the focus on the mundane in combat while leaving magic assault a credible secondary threat.
The  upshot was a game where the magic felt more like _Runequest_ in that most characters had a little magic of a type that emphasized their strengths.

A second example comes from a Fantasy Hero campaign.  Magic was defined in a way where it was prone to disruption from specific non-magical elemental forces and hard to affect with other magicks.  Simple magicks were vulnerable to one element, more powerful stuff to two.  Need to break through a sidhe's glamer?  Try a cold iron.  Need to kill a demon?  Give him a bellyful of silver or fire or both.  But don't try to best it with magical fire -- it'll cackle as it rends you limb from limb.

Here the narrative space was defined in such a way that mundane combat was effective against all opponents, but magical combat effectively had a very limited impact against other magical opponents.  All characters had access to mundane penetration of in-place magical effects but spell-casters didn't necessarily want to expose themselves to those features and restrict their own capabilities.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 2, 2013)

With apologies for a potential thread derail...



pemerton said:


> From Mike Mearls
> 
> The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.




I think this quote neatly sums up my attitude to The Forge. I find it interesting that people have deconstructed RPGs in such an academic manner--the hobby/industry has "grown up" if you will--but it's tangential to the vast majority of people's experience, much as how people can enjoy Jane Austin without a degree in English Literature. Its terminology is arguably helpful in discussions such as this but, unlike in academic discourse, the jargon is not ubiquitous.



pemerton said:


> "Author stance", at least as I use it (from The Forge) refers to choosing actions for one's PC _from the point of view of an author_ - ie "It would be pretty cool for my guy to do this awesome thing" - rather than from the point of view of the character him-/herself. In some playstyles, author stance then involves writing in a rationalising in-character motivation (eg "My guy loves to show off!").






pemerton said:


> I still regard them both as director stance - in both cases the player is doing something other than stipulate a choice/action for his/her PC.
> 
> Author stance, at least as The Forge uses that term, is not about _scope of player control over gameworld_. It's about _reasons for declaring PC actions_. If those reasons are derived from in-fiction considerations ("My guy wouldn't do that") you're in actor stance. If those reasons are derived from real-world considerations ("I want to play a guy who wouldn't do that") you're in author stance.




Yes, this is my interpretation of Author stance too. I wonder if "Author" is perhaps an inaccurate term--but that is a discussion for another thread!



Manbearcat said:


> Author stance is assumed when the person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions on a basis not solely borne of the character's priorities. Generally, the actual player's priorities have primacy here and are independent of the character's current, pre-established knowledge and perceptions. *You're most often establishing backstory for your character, leveraging it immediately and using it as a means to an end; that end may be "the rule of cool", "genre proliferation", or merely "flavor/color of mechanical resolution of a conflict".*




Whilst I agree with the first part of this I'm not so sure about the part I've emphasised, although that may just be a difference in perspective.

I believe it's possible to draw a (very loose) comparison between Actor stance and Method Acting: the player strives to remain in character throughout, using only in-character knowledge and psychological motivation to dictate the PC's actions.

In contrast, Pawn stance views the character sheet as little more than a player token in Monopoly: it is the means by which the player interacts with the game environment, with no regard to the motivation of the character itself. "Character" here is somewhat of a misnomer.

Author stance stands somewhere between the two. It is similar to Actor stance in that the psychological motivation of the character is often important to the player but this motivation is modified, possibly retroactively, by the metagame considerations of the player. Author stance is similar to Pawn stance in that the character is often a means to an end for the player to interact with the game environment (by doing "cool stuff") irrespective of what "the character" would be motivated to do in that situation. The Forge clearly distinguishes between Actor and Author stance and places Pawn stance as a subset of Author stance. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] suggests, the line is somewhat fuzzy in practicality if not in definition.

I don't think any of these three stances (Actor, Author and Pawn) have the "authority" to dictate the relationship between the PC and the guard. However, a successful skill check (for example) could be rationalised and explained in-fiction as such.

That's my take on things, at any rate


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 2, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Author stance stands somewhere between the two. It is similar to Actor stance in that the psychological motivation of the character is often important to the player but this motivation is modified, possibly retroactively, by the metagame considerations of the player. Author stance is similar to Pawn stance in that the character is often a means to an end for the player to interact with the game environment (by doing "cool stuff") irrespective of what "the character" would be motivated to do in that situation. The Forge clearly distinguishes between Actor and Author stance and places Pawn stance as a subset of Author stance. As  @_*pemerton*_  suggests, the line is somewhat fuzzy in practicality if not in definition.




I was going to frame Actor Stance with respect to Pawn Stance but I didn't want to weigh down the discussion with another piece of jargon that required further expansion.  However, I think people understand Pawn Stance more intuitively so perhaps that was a needless concern.  

Pawn Stance is indeed a subset of Actor Stance.  That is the best way to differentiate them.  If you're making a decision from Actor Stance that has 0 character-driven perspective relevance or interaction with backstory (and therefore risks likely incoherency within the fiction).  Jumping off a cliff because you (the player) knows that you have a 100 % chance to survive the fall and perhaps only a 50/50 chance to survive combat with a troupe of giants up top is solely assuming Pawn Stance.  Doing the exact same action, and regaling the table of your "in-character" reasoning/motivation and skinning the fiction in such a way that makes sense with respect to that decision/motivation is Actor Stance.

The same thing applies to the Door above.  If you're doing it solely because you have a better chance at the mechanical resolution end of things and pay no heed to in character reasoning/motivation (and further, if you provide little in the way of evidence for trusting that guard), then you're in Pawn Stance.  Rather, if you voiceover or information dump the table with your "in-character" reasoning/motivation (its much less risky than an infiltration and this guy has been looking to redeem this favor for some time so you want to give him that opportunity...and perhaps he believes in your cause) and skin the fiction in a way that makes sense with respect to that decision/motivation, then you're in Actor Stance.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2013)

[MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION] - good post, though I'm perhaps a bigger Forge fan - discovering the Forge is the single biggest thing that improved my GMing.

But no XP for you, I'm still dry!


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> @_*Mike Eagling*_  - good post, though I'm perhaps a bigger Forge fan - discovering the Forge is the single biggest thing that improved my GMing.
> 
> But no XP for you, I'm still dry!




Covered.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 2, 2013)

I think this example might be instructive.

Let's take the always scary to conversation 4e Martial Exploit "Come and Get It".  

Original version contains an Author's Stance element.  Enemies move toward you without a test.  There is no action resolution to their moving toward you.  You, the player, say the NPCs do and they do.  You, the player, scribe the fiction to your genre tastes, fitting or retrofitting your character's motivations to the situation.  If you do not and you just move pieces around the board and attack with no regard for the fiction, then you're in Pawn Stance.



> WotC D&D 4e PHB1 p80 errata
> *Come and Get It*_
> You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will never forget._
> *Encounter*
> ...





The errata version can easily be deployed from Actor's Stance as the movement is a contest.  People may not like the nature of the contest (martial forced movement as martial mind control as the epithet goes), but it can be deployed solely from Actor's Stance.  If you think martial mind control is "a thing" then you'd probably dispute that an attack vs Will to wrongfoot an enemy or pull off a feint/ruse is legitimate.  If you don't believe that such a contest can generate the forced movement effect solely from the character's internal locus of control then you don't think it can be deployed from Actor's Stance.



> WotC D&D 4e PHB1 p80 errata
> *Come and Get It*
> _You  brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close  through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against  them all._
> *Encounter*
> ...


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 2, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> I think this example might be instructive.
> 
> Let's take the always scary to conversation 4e Martial Exploit "Come and Get It".




I've always wondered why it was that big a deal since there are a number of 3x feats that do similar things.



> Goad
> You are skilled at inducing opponents to attack you.
> Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +1.
> Benefit: As a move action, you can goad an opponent that threatens you, has line of sight to you, can hear you, and has an Intelligence of 3 or higher. (The goad is a mind-affecting ability.) When the goaded opponent starts its next turn, if it threatens you and has line of sight to you, it must make a Will saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Cha modifier). If the opponent fails its save, you are the only creature it can make melee attacks against during this turn. (If it kills you, knocks you unconscious, loses sight of you, or otherwise is unable to make melee attacks against you, it may make any remaining melee attacks against other foes, as normal.) A goaded creature can still cast spells, make ranged attacks, move, or perform other actions normally. The use of this feat restricts only melee attacks.
> Special: A fighter may select Goad as one of his fighter bonus feats.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 2, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I've always wondered why it was that big a deal since there are a number of 3x feats that do similar things.




Yeah.  Unsurprisingly, I agree (in both that its a big deal and there is precedent in prior editions)   Nonetheless, invocation of it may be as toxic to conversation as "4e is nothing more/just a tactical skirmish boardgame linked by freeform roleplaying."  Its frustrating because its a good mechanic to break down to clarify conversation.


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 2, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Yeah.  Unsurprisingly, I agree (in both that its a big deal and there is precedent in prior editions)   Nonetheless, invocation of it may be as toxic to conversation as "4e is nothing more/just a tactical skirmish boardgame linked by freeform roleplaying."  Its frustrating because its a good mechanic to break down to clarify conversation.




I agree. I'll discuss any game, system, mechanic, ability, what-have-you, regardless if it's something I play or not, for whatever reason. I guess people like holding up their symbols. It also doesn't hurt that I like tactical skirmish boardgames and I like freeform roleplaying. It's a shame I didn't take to 4e. 

I'm experimenting with a game that puts all the dice and and most of the rules in the players' hands. That's probably a bit to dangerous to bring up though.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 2, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I've always wondered why it was that big a deal since there are a number of 3x feats that do similar things.




In some cases, it's a matter of degree. Notice that CaGI affects pretty much everything and makes it come forward to take a hit. Goad won't affect things like oozes, vermin, or even most animals. It also doesn't force it to move and take a hit, rather it overrides other choices it might have in what it can make melee attacks against. Any other action is A-OK. So while with CaGI, you can force a character who normally doesn't move into contact into direct contact and take a hit, with Goad those sorts of standoffish PCs retain their freedom of choice to stay at range. CaGI is much better than Goad in what results it can achieve.

That said, feats like Goad and Antagonize (on the PF side) *are still controversial* because of their potential to overrule player control of his PC without the intervention of magic. Nearly as controversial as CaGI, in fact. So it's not just that CaGI was an unexpected big deal. Goad and similar feats simply *are* a big deal.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 2, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I've always wondered why it was that big a deal since there are a number of 3x feats that do similar things.



I know that I quite slammed the Goad feat, too. I don't think people that dislike Come And Get It are giving a free pass on everything that was 3.X; if that was the case, I'd still be playing 3.X, whereas I'm not, because I didn't much like a lot of it. So, I wouldn't wonder too much. A lot (most?) of the people that don't like Come And Get It don't like 3.X's Goad feat, either. As always, play what you like


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 3, 2013)

Besides Goad there's also aspects of the knight's challenge mechanic from the 3e PHBII. In any case, the answer was the same, plenty of people didn't like it in 3e, and the 4e version less so, because the attacker rolls, because the effect is more restrictive, and because in 4e "everything is core" (while 3e's martial mind control is not).

All of them cut the same way; they all effectively say that a player can control the behavior of other characters besides their own.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 3, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> All of them cut the same way; they all effectively say that a player can control the behavior of other characters besides their own.



Which makes them pretty clear examples of "narrative space options for non-spellcasters".


----------



## Nagol (Jul 3, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Which makes them pretty clear examples of "narrative space options for non-spellcasters".




In a minimal way.  They expand the options within a space for which the character type already has strong options (melee combat) without expanding the space into territory for which the character type has weak options.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 3, 2013)

billd91 said:


> That said, feats like Goad and Antagonize (on the PF side) *are still controversial* because of their potential to *overrule player control of his PC without the intervention of magic*. Nearly as controversial as CaGI, in fact. So it's not just that CaGI was an unexpected big deal. Goad and similar feats simply *are* a big deal.




Emphasis added.  If we want to add more options to non-magic using characters, then we need to accept that moe things can be accomplished without the use of magic.  The player has lost control of his PC to a Taunt spell or to a Goad/Antagonize feat.  Tough luck - the PC can't simply choose to control his emotions because the player, or the PC, wants him to.  If I want my character to be a potent melee monster, I invest charater resources in STR, CON, high BAB class levels and/or combat feats.  If I want him to be a great judge of character, I invest character resources to enhance my Sense Motive skill.  If I want my character to be centred, in control of his emotions and difficult to Charm or Goad, then I invest character resources in a high WIS, high Will save class levels and/or feats like Iron Will.  Not deciding by player fiat that my character is difficult/impossible to influence or manipulate.

I don't get to decide I'm a powerful fighter, or that Im slippery and agile (so I evade Fireballs, for example).  I invest character resources to maximize my ability in those areas most relevant to my vision of my character.  And I have to trade off - he can't be good at everything, and if he wants to be "the best there is" in one area, he's not going to be that great in other areas.  Resisting social manipulation is just one more area where I have to decide the extent of character resources I'm prepared to invest, no different from any other choice of where to invest my scarce character resources.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 3, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Emphasis added.  If we want to add more options to non-magic using characters, then we need to accept that moe things can be accomplished without the use of magic.  The player has lost control of his PC to a Taunt spell or to a Goad/Antagonize feat.  Tough luck - the PC can't simply choose to control his emotions because the player, or the PC, wants him to.  If I want my character to be a potent melee monster, I invest charater resources in STR, CON, high BAB class levels and/or combat feats.  If I want him to be a great judge of character, I invest character resources to enhance my Sense Motive skill.  If I want my character to be centred, in control of his emotions and difficult to Charm or Goad, then I invest character resources in a high WIS, high Will save class levels and/or feats like Iron Will.  Not deciding by player fiat that my character is difficult/impossible to influence or manipulate.




I generally agree with you and don't see much of a problem with feats like Goad and Antagonize. I believe, nevertheless, that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to accomplish - the real heavy duty magic stuff like teleport, fireballs, and the like. But manipulating people's emotions ranging from fear to anger to enthrallment? Oh, yeah. People do that now and that's even without being big, damn fantasy heroes.


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 3, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I generally agree with you and don't see much of a problem with feats like Goad and Antagonize. I believe, nevertheless, that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to accomplish - the real heavy duty magic stuff like teleport, fireballs, and the like. But manipulating people's emotions ranging from fear to anger to enthrallment? Oh, yeah. People do that now and that's even without being big, damn fantasy heroes.




I think we all agree that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to do.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 3, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I generally agree with you and don't see much of a problem with feats like Goad and Antagonize. I believe, nevertheless, that there are things mundane abilities should not be able to accomplish - the real heavy duty magic stuff like teleport, fireballs, and the like. But manipulating people's emotions ranging from fear to anger to enthrallment? Oh, yeah. People do that now and that's even without being big, damn fantasy heroes.




I'd say I generally agree as well.  However, a Fireball and a hail of arrows both have the same end result of inflicting damage to targets in an area, albeit with different sources and ancillary results (I don't burn the spellbook with a hail of arrows, for example, but Damage Reduction and Fire Resistance trade off between the two).  The Rogue can't Teleport, but if we allow him to build a network of mundane contacts, he could be permitted to arrange stealthy transport and surreptitious entry to many locations (sure, not the throne room -  but how do you get the needed familiarity to Teleport into the throne room?).  Assuming no time pressure, that has a lot of the same benefits as Teleporting - and it's not limited to the rogue and 1 extra creature per 3 levels (less if any are Large) either.  

But we have to let the mundane abilities function.  The rogue's contact network does the job, the smugglers don't betray the party, etc.  In other words, the mundane needs reliability comparable to magic.  Just like we would not suggest the Fighter keep his very reliable combat abilities, but impose a 50% failure chance on every spell cast in combat, we should not be accepting that magic never fails, while exploiting every possible failing in any non-magical ability.

You know, I keep coming back to a HeroQuest (http://moondesignpublications.com/product/heroquest-core-rules, not the boardgame series) approach.  That's a pretty loose system where plaers name their abilities.  So one might have Magic, a second might have Fire Magic and a third might have a Fireball.  If all three want to use a Fireball to accomplish some task, the third gets an ordinary roll.  The second takes a penalty, and the first a larger penalty.  The most specific ability rolls normally, and broader abilities get a penalty.

In a Supers setting, we had three classes of abilities, Normal, Extraordinary and SuperPower.  A SuperPower will always beat a Normal ability, and an Extraordinary ability will take a penalty against a SuperPower.  But there are situations and areas where Superpowers Just. Don't. Work.  More frequent existence of Anti-Magic effects might do a lot to level the playing field if magic is truly perceived as "overpowered" compared to mundane abilities.  That's another potential balancer, though I'm not a real fan of "sometimes you're omnipotent and sometimes you're useless" as a balancing mechanism.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 3, 2013)

N'raac said:


> The Rogue can't Teleport, but if we allow him to build a network of mundane contacts, he could be permitted to arrange stealthy transport and surreptitious entry to many locations (sure, not the throne room -  but how do you get the needed familiarity to Teleport into the throne room?).  Assuming no time pressure, that has a lot of the same benefits as Teleporting - and it's not limited to the rogue and 1 extra creature per 3 levels (less if any are Large) either.




Ultimate Campaign by Paizo has some  interesting ideas for use of contacts. It's one of the reasons I posted earlier that it might worthwhile giving out Leadership as a bonus feat for certain types of characters. The followers you get could be treated as contacts, scattered about in useful places, and you can get contacts to do things for you.



N'raac said:


> But we have to let the mundane abilities function.  The rogue's contact network does the job, the smugglers don't betray the party, etc.  In other words, the mundane needs reliability comparable to magic.  Just like we would not suggest the Fighter keep his very reliable combat abilities, but impose a 50% failure chance on every spell cast in combat, we should not be accepting that magic never fails, while exploiting every possible failing in any non-magical ability.




I agree again. Magical and mundane abilities should have roughly the same fallibility or at least have appropriate trade-offs. In 1e and 2e, where saving throws got better as the targets got more powerful, martial combat was generally a more reliable process. Fighter-types hit a lot - most of the time. It was the save or sit/encounter ending spells that were a more mercurial strategy. 3e turned too much of that around. First attacks still hit well but after that things were less likely, meanwhile, casters had a lot more power to hit a weak save with an enhanced save DC.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 3, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Which makes them pretty clear examples of "narrative space options for non-spellcasters".



No, it makes them examples of narrative space options for _players_ of non-spellcasters. The character's role in any of these referenced abilities is pretty ambiguous.

That is, it reflects a philosophy that says "this fighter is too boring, let's give the player some powers beyond what the fighter can do, which will bring the player's participation in line with that of the player of a spellcaster". I don't particularly agree with this philosophy, but that's what it is.


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 3, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> No, it makes them examples of narrative space options for _players_ of non-spellcasters. The character's role in any of these referenced abilities is pretty ambiguous.
> 
> That is, it reflects a philosophy that says "this fighter is too boring, let's give the player some powers beyond what the fighter can do, which will bring the player's participation in line with that of the player of a spellcaster". I don't particularly agree with this philosophy, but that's what it is.




I disagree. My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class. Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll. 

Now in real life, I can walk into a crowded room and yell, forcing everyone's attention on me. I can do this without someone else's approval. I've controlled their reaction. No "player" is controlling me. No "DM" is controlling them. Yet I'm able to do this. How is that remotely different than giving the fighter the same ability that I have in real life?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 3, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I disagree. My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class. Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll.




Maybe the mistake was moving into the center of the room which allows them to get around you and to the people you are supposedly protecting when you should have held the choke point? Should "narrative options" substitute for bad tactics? Why should a bunch of orcs, seeing a fighter wander into the room with some other people hanging out behind him, not want to engage them too? After all, once a few of the bully-boys engage the fighter, you've still got plenty of orc brothers to take on the fighter's companions.




sheadunne said:


> Now in real life, I can walk into a crowded room and yell, forcing everyone's attention on me. I can do this without someone else's approval. I've controlled their reaction. No "player" is controlling me. No "DM" is controlling them. Yet I'm able to do this. How is that remotely different than giving the fighter the same ability that I have in real life?




But can you keep that attention and prevent people leaving the room?


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 3, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. *So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party*, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class.




Whilst I get your wider point I really must highlight that your DM is rubbish.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 3, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> Now in real life, I can walk into a crowded room and yell, forcing everyone's attention on me. I can do this without someone else's approval. I've controlled their reaction.



Well, you've elicited an involuntary reaction.



> How is that remotely different than giving the fighter the same ability that I have in real life?



I seriously doubt that you or anyone else has the ability to force other combatants to attack you preferentially or exclusively during a fight (especially against their own best interests). That's hardly the same thing as getting people to briefly pay attention to you after you've made a sudden noise.



> Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll.



I am unfamiliar with any specific ability that works in this way (except dominate effects, in which case I have no idea why the wizard would order dominated enemies to attack the fighter when they are effectively defeated). Also, as has been covered elsewhere, the DM most certainly does have a choice in any matter.



> I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks.



Well, I think the rules for movement, initiative, and rooms cover that pretty well.



> He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that.



I don't get this scenario at all. If there's any kind of space restriction, martial characters can pretty easily form a physical impediment to the casters. If not, there's readied actions, AoOs, trip, etc. if the fighter wants to prevent enemies from attacking spellcasters behind him.

But yes, the bottom line is that most enemies will act rationally. Knowing that wizards are scary but have weak defenses, many intelligent enemies will target them preferentially. If a fighter wants to be the target, the best way of doing so is to establish himself as a threat, by harming and killing enemies, at which point they will target him because it makes tactical sense. None of this requires a mechanic for "aggro" or any special ability that forces enemies to behave a certain way. The point is that yes, people do ignore the guy with the weapon. Even a fairly dumb opponent like an orc should be expected to make an assessment of the tactical situation and act accordingly. The player's influence is through his character's ability to change that tactical situation, and that's quite enough IMO.

IME, most fighters and their ilk _are_ dangerous enough that opponents will attack them fairly often without any particular action on the players' part to induce that behavior.


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 3, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Whilst I get your wider point I really must highlight that your DM is rubbish.




Haha. Fair enough.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 3, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Maybe the mistake was moving into the center of the room which allows them to get around you and to the people you are supposedly protecting when you should have held the choke point? Should "narrative options" substitute for bad tactics?



Well put. The outcome of the situation is dicated by tactical considerations, which players have plenty of control over.



Mike Eagling said:


> Whilst I get your wider point I really must highlight that your DM is rubbish.



The scenario he posited did seem to assume some ridiculousness on the DM's part (which, as I always say, is not for the rules to fix).


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 3, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> Haha. Fair enough.








Ahnehnois said:


> The scenario he posited did seem to assume some ridiculousness on the DM's part (which, as I always say, is not for the rules to fix).




Yeah, it's a contrived example for illustration purposes but it doesn't work, IMHO:

If a lone fighter bursts into a room full of orcs (assuming they're combatants) they're going to wonder whether he's crazy or much more dangerous than he looks. Either way, all orc eyes will be on the fighter until they've established which.

So a "look at me!" feat is completely unnecessary to achieve the desired result, provided the orcs were role-played with the intelligence they warrant.


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 3, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Yeah, it's a contrived example for illustration purposes but it doesn't work, IMHO:
> 
> If a lone fighter bursts into a room full of orcs (assuming they're combatants) they're going to wonder whether he's crazy or much more dangerous than he looks. Either way, all orc eyes will be on the fighter until they've established which.
> 
> So a "look at me!" feat is completely unnecessary to achieve the desired result, provided the orcs were role-played with the intelligence they warrant.




He wasn't alone in the example, thought I mentioned that. Oh well. I really think we need to start having these conversations without examples because people tend to only focus on the example and ignore the point of the entire post. Again, oh well.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 3, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room.






sheadunne said:


> He wasn't alone in the example, thought I mentioned that. Oh well. I really think we need to start having these conversations without examples because people tend to only focus on the example and ignore the point of the entire post. Again, oh well.




From the quote above that wasn't clear.


----------



## sheadunne (Jul 3, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> From the quote above that wasn't clear.




"He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party."

Guess I buried it, though I didn't think it was that important. Tis the nature of examples I suppose.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jul 3, 2013)

I'd like to point out that if a party of PCs is in a room, and a huge ogre bursts in to engage them while his MU buddy waits out in the corridor, at least half of my players, if not more, would immediately run past the ogre to get the MU.  Maybe that's why the orcs do it to you.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 3, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> Oh well. I really think we need to start having these conversations without examples because people tend to only focus on the example and ignore the point of the entire post.



I couldn't tell what the point was. Was the point that you expected your fighter to be able to force enemies to make a suboptimal tactical decision (attacking you)? Was the point that a fighter should be different in some way such that attacking him instead of other party members is a better decision? Those are the two interpretations that occurred to me, and neither made much sense to me.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 3, 2013)

This is why I think skills are incredibly powerful when it comes to narrative control situations like the example being mentioned now. I use a modified version of GitP's Diplomacy Rule that I call Negotiation (and the DCs have been modified, etc.). If the Fighter had this skill (or a skill like it, but only for convincing people to fight him, like for a duel, etc.), then he could burst in, shout something like "I challenge all you weak-ass, pansy orcs to take me on, if you're man enough," and roll his skill check to get them to attack.

The GM, as of that point, sets the DC based on Risk vs Reward (do they perceive him as weak? If so, probably in the Fighter's favor), Relationship (Enemy, looks like, so since they distrust him, slightly harder to manipulate), and hit die (orcs are generally easier to manipulate than pit fiends). If the Fighter succeeds, the orcs take him up on his challenge, and attack him (so they don't appear weak). Of course, they'd have to understand the Fighter, but that makes sense, to me. Maybe his "challenge" ability that mimics Negotiation for fights also gives him "phrases to issue challenges in nearly every language, as well as dirty words in those languages"?

And, of course, if the Fighter tried to get, say, a drow wizard to attack in melee (which he could specify in his challenge, instead of just "fight me"), the Risk vs Reward would be harder, since the drow wizard sucks in melee (and probably has a higher Wisdom than those orcs). Again, he might be able to do it, though, if he gets a high enough result; that's just him getting under the drow wizard's skin, and the wizard taking him on. If the Fighter wants more reliable results, a straight "give me your best shot" would have an easier skill check DC than asking for melee combat (again, which makes sense).

This is why I wanted skills to be much more defined. You start giving people broad abilities like this one skill, and you've opened up a lot of space for what they can do to the narrative. I still want the skills well-defined (a lot more defined that 4e, 3.5's Diplomacy, etc.), though, and I just doubt we'll see that. And that's too bad, because you can have some really cool stuff come from it. As always, play what you like


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 3, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> "He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party."
> 
> Guess I buried it, though I didn't think it was that important. Tis the nature of examples I suppose.




No, I get there are other people in the party. The implication appeared to be that they were, as others have described it, "waiting in the corridor". Thus, from the orcs' initial perspective the fighter was alone and the effect you were describing (all attention on the fighter) should have been possible even in the absence of an explicit rule on a character sheet.

As said upthread, not everything has to be fixed by the rules. It is possible to, maybe, role-play this stuff.


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 4, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> IME, most fighters and their ilk _are_ dangerous enough that opponents will attack them fairly often without any particular action on the players' part to induce that behavior.




No, they attack if the DM decides they attack because he only (outside 4e) controls the mechanic, which is the whole point of the discussion: how to create narrative ability for players of non-spellcasters to shape the response of the antagonistic elements in the scene


----------



## N'raac (Jul 4, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Ultimate Campaign by Paizo has some  interesting ideas for use of contacts. It's one of the reasons I posted earlier that it might worthwhile giving out Leadership as a bonus feat for certain types of characters. The followers you get could be treated as contacts, scattered about in useful places, and you can get contacts to do things for you.




Why a bonus feat?  Why not "if you want these things, you take this feat, instead of a different feat that makes you more capable in combat/spellcasting./whatever?"  Does the fighter have insufficient feats?  If so, then let's give him more, by all means.  But not tell him "you are a Fighter, so you get this feat, at this level, which makes you a Leader of Men.  You don't get to choose to take it earlier, or later.  You can't choose something else.  All fighters must be Leaders of Men, and they must become such at this specific level".



sheadunne said:


> I disagree. My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it? There are no rules to support my actions, no abilities listed with the class. Yet the player of the wizard character can walk into the room, mumble a few words, DM rolls some dice, and accomplish what the fighter is unable to do, because I do have the character resources to make the orcs attack me. The DM has no choice in the matter. The rules say the orcs attack me if they fail their roll.




So what's the fix?  I'm pretty sure there are feat chains that can allow you extra AoO's, reach weapons to broaden your reach and further feats that will preclude the orcs from continuing to move after your AoO.  A new feat that allows you to, say, use your Intimidate skill to cause enemies to focus their attacks on you, rather than your allies, seems like a reasonable add, which will give you the result you want.  But there will, presumably, be a new desired result later on.  Should you get infinite feats?  The 1st level Wizard does not get a Fireball spell,  not even if he rolls really well trying to cast it, nor does he have a spell he can use in an anti-magic field.  Until, of course, one is added and he has the option of selecting it.  Maybe this should be included in Intimidate, or maybe we need a different skill to encompass this.

But, having made this a feat or a skill, now the Wizard can take it too, so the fighter is not unique in having access to this ability.  Should he be?  If this is something anyone can do, why should the rules restrict it to fighters?  Isn't that why we ditched thieving skills that didn't allow other classes to climb walls or hide in shadows?


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 4, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> So a "look at me!" feat is completely unnecessary to achieve the desired result, provided the orcs were role-played with the intelligence they warrant.




I think the example clearly warrants that the player needs the ability to prevent a DM overriding simply because he wants to.

The key to narrative is shared authorship; period.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 4, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> I think the example clearly warrants that the player needs the ability to prevent a DM overriding simply because he wants to.




Well my "completely unnecessary" referred to that specific example, assuming a decent GM and a decent explanation of the player's actions and intentions. I wasn't implying such a feat/skill/whatever was verboten generally.



Warbringer said:


> The key to narrative is shared authorship; period.




Completely agree.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 4, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> No, they attack if the DM decides they attack because he only (outside 4e) controls the mechanic,



Yes, that's what "induce" means. The DM is induced to use the enemy is a particular way.



> which is the whole point of the discussion: how to create narrative ability for players of non-spellcasters to shape the response of the antagonistic elements in the scene



Which is my point. Why would anyone have that ability? Spellcasters don't control their enemies (barring some rare exceptions involving enchantments and such). And everyone shapes the responses of the enemies by doing things that enemies react to (assuming they are thinking enemies; again barring exceptions for mindlessness). The player characters are controlled by the players, the nonplayer characters by the DM. I don't understand why this is a problem to some.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 4, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> No, it makes them examples of narrative space options for _players_ of non-spellcasters.



That's what the thread is about - options to give players of non-spellcasters greater narrative space options. 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.



Mike Eagling said:


> As said upthread, not everything has to be fixed by the rules. It is possible to, maybe, role-play this stuff.



This is equally true for the spellcaster. The cleric can negotiate with his/her god, for example (played by the GM). The wizard can free-form spellcasting.

But for various reasons, some mere tradition but I think not only that, players of spellcasters get some determinate abilities that don't depend upon persuading the GM via roleplay. Narrative options for players of non-spellcasters are about giving those other players the same sort of capabilities.



JamesonCourage said:


> This is why I think skills are incredibly powerful when it comes to narrative control situations like the example being mentioned now. I use a modified version of GitP's Diplomacy Rule that I call Negotiation (and the DCs have been modified, etc.). If the Fighter had this skill (or a skill like it, but only for convincing people to fight him, like for a duel, etc.), then he could burst in, shout something like "I challenge all you weak-ass, pansy orcs to take me on, if you're man enough," and roll his skill check to get them to attack.



There are two dimensions in play here.

One is whether resolution should be via "fortune" (successful die roll) or "karma (fiatable ability, though perhaps from a rationed supply). Burning Wheel opts for fortune every time; D&D traditionally opts for karma when it comes to spells, and 4e extends that approach to non-casters - so (pre-errata) CaGI doesn't depend upon a die roll, just like Transmute Mud to Rock doesn't depend upon a die roll. Which is preferable depends in part on taste, in part on the sort of feel you're trying to create - D&D is definitely more heroic in tone than BW, though BW also has a complicated Fate Point economy to try to mitigate the vagaries of fortune at certain key moments in play.

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.)



sheadunne said:


> My issue is that the fighter can't do what he's suppose to be able to do. I want to move into the room and stand before the horde of orcs ready to fight them, become the target of their attacks. I look down at my character sheet and . . . nothing. Nothing's there that helps me do that. There are no options for me as the player to play the character I want to play. So I turn to the DM and raise my eyebrows. He shrugs and has half the orcs run past me and kill the rest of the party, when, let's face it, nobody ignores the guy with the weapon when he enters the room. Yet the DM controls the narrative and the player has no character options to challenge that. How can I possibly play my character when there's no resources on my sheet to accomplish it?



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.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2013)

pemerton said:


> There are two dimensions in play here.
> 
> One is whether resolution should be via "fortune" (successful die roll) or "karma (fiatable ability, though perhaps from a rationed supply).
> 
> The second dimension is whether these abilities - be they fortune or karma - have metagame dimensions or not.



I'm not sure if you're trying to build on what I say here just in general, or if you're trying to get me to reply to something in specific. Yes, there are "roll dice" and "don't roll dice" methods, and meta and non-meta methods. I agree that those exist. Unfortunately, I think I missed what you were trying to point out to me... can you help me out? As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jul 4, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not sure if you're trying to build on what I say here just in general, or if you're trying to get me to reply to something in specific.



A bit of A, a bit of B. For instance, I'm curious as to which dimension you see the "incredible power" of skills deriving from.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2013)

pemerton said:


> A bit of A, a bit of B. For instance, I'm curious as to which dimension you see the "incredible power" of skills deriving from.



I'd definitely side with "fortune" as far as approaching skills from a design perspective goes. Of course, I prefer skills that scale as you level, with ample ability to "take 10" and static DCs (even if threatened / distracted, if you invest in it). At some point, certain skill-based abilities become "karma", since you can take a 10 and succeeded with no roll required, even in combat; the Fighter can reliably get low level orcs to attack him, but not reliably get pit fiends to do so-that requires a roll.

Meta / non-meta doesn't make much of a difference from the design perspective (in my mind), but I'd lean towards non-meta (since that's my personal preference in play). They each have their benefits, depending on what your goal is, your personal preferences, etc. For example, meta mechanics might help immerse one person, while pulling others out of immersion. The downside of meta mechanics is that certain builds that would seemingly use it more (Fighter, Rogue, etc.) might seem "luckier" in-game, and not as competent as their spellcasting companions. The upside, of course, is that you give those same builds a lot more power to help put them on equal footing with magic, without worrying about how it works from the mundane character's perspective.

Did that help at all clarify my view at all? And, did you have any thoughts on skills in regards to your dimensions? As always, play what you like


----------



## Balesir (Jul 4, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Whilst I get your wider point I really must highlight that your DM is rubbish.



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?

On what magic can do but non-magic can't: while I agree that some actions have a very heavy "magical" flavour while others are more "non-magical", I think the only way that non-spellcasting classes will ever get anything even approaching the narrative power of spellcasters is if you are prepared to relinquish the strict, check the dice at every point of uncertainty, physical process following model of "mundane" actions. If prompting reactions, evoking emotions and body-language trickery are not things that non-spellcasters can gain *mastery* of (when spellcasters can, because magic) then any hope of balanced options in the interactive sphere (including combat and negotiation) is a pipe dream.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 4, 2013)

Balesir said:


> 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 (Jul 4, 2013)

Balesir said:


> 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").



Mike Eagling said:


> 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 (Jul 4, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Jul 4, 2013)

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 (Jul 4, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> 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...



N'raac said:


> 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.



N'raac said:


> 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.



N'raac said:


> 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.



N'raac said:


> 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";
> 
> ...



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".



N'raac said:


> 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 (Jul 5, 2013)

Alzrius 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.



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



N'raac said:


> 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.



N'raac said:


> Taken to its ultimate extreme, why do we need a GM at all?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 5, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Jul 5, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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 Lands_are 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 (Jul 5, 2013)

[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 (Jul 5, 2013)

pemerton said:


> 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.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> 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!



You just make it a meditational focus, a cleaning bucket or a ritual bell instead of a flowerpot. Fluff changes are trivial. If you had a monestary where they were utterly fanatical about locking up absolutely every loose item in case of thieves you might have more of a problem, but that would seem a trifle forced, to me.



Tuft said:


> - 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.



You just say the Taunt fails and allow a Sense Motive check to discern exactly why. You have a reason the Taunt fails (I'm presuming these "automata" are immune to "Taunt") and you communicate that there _is_ some reason (that the players may be able to find out) by allowing an (open) Sense Motive check.

This stuff is really quite easy to manage, once you get used to it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 5, 2013)

pemerton said:


> That's what the thread is about - options to give players of non-spellcasters greater narrative space options. It's pretty obvious that those are going to have to inlcude metagame mechanics



I think the point here (particularly if you go back and read the OP) is how to expand those options _without_ using 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



Not really. There is plenty of talk in both threads about how martial classes often don't have abilities that one could expect them to have based on those kind of considerations. Skills, psychological abilities, active defense mechanics, et cetera.

There is plenty of room for all characters to exert influence without metagame abilities.



> (ii) non-spellcasters are, within the fiction, limited to their in-character causal capacities.



So are spellcasters. Their causal capacities are simply different.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> 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!



The declared backstory can't contradict the known backstory. That's a pretty standard rule in any game. It applies to the GM just as much as the players! Eg the river can't be 10' wide today and 10 yards wide tomorrow without some ingame causal explanation (eg a lot of rain upstream).



Tuft said:


> - 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.



Do the orcs have an immunity? Then the GM has to declare that. Maybe the players can work out from that that they're automata.

Does the player declare CaGI as a taunt, and the automata rush in? They must be programmed to keep their automaton status a secret!


----------



## N'raac (Jul 5, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> 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.




Again, I don't see that as a "narrative control option", but a different ability for the fighter which he uses to resolve challenges within the narrative.  



Tuft said:


> 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!




It can be a loose brick in the windowsill.  You paid a point to have a small, heavy object you can drop down on the climbing target.  Of course, once we introduce the ability of the player to unilaterally alter the scenery, we have some questions to answer:

 - is it infallible (I spend a point and get a flowerpot) or fallible (I spend a point and get to roll for the flowerpot to exist)?

 - is it fully player controlled, or can the GM intervene (for example, can the GM spend a "No Point" and cancel out that flowerpot; can he state that there are no such objects in the room based on the backstory - it's a well maintained prison cell, so no decorations, loose bricks, etc.)

 - how far does it extend?  A flower pot?  No, I want a cauldron of boiling oil to dump on that guy, so there is a bubbling deep fryer sitting right by the windowsill.  Or a Thompson SMG, fully loaded.  Or a pipe bomb.



Tuft said:


> - 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.




This is an issue with defined powers - if I paid for a power that makes opponents attack me, then it either specifies automata are not affected or they are affected.  No GM override, no matter how logical.  Now, if the answer is that this power does not affect automata, my answer is that the orcs attack someone else.  The player says "I used my Taunt, they should attack me", and I reply that I am aware of the taunt - the Orc still attacks the wizard.  In my game, the player would start considering why his power didn't work.  But that also requires some faith that the GM does not simply declare powers don't work by fiat ("this Orc is special and can't be taunted because he is immune to Jedi Mind Tricks for no reason other than I still want him to lay some hurt on the wizard"). 

Just like a 16 Spellcraft check on a potion failing to ID it did not result in cries of GM override, but the conclusion that the potion must carry a L2 or higher spell, since that would ID a L1 spell.

To my mind, narrative control would allow the fighter to somehow dictate that these are not automata after all, or that they have mysteriously developed some form of rudimentary sentience so, despite the immunity of automatons in general, taunt affects these ones.  This would then become part of the narrative, changing the evolving storyline.  This would force a GM to be much more improv-focused, as the backstory and assumptions he based the scenario around can, and will, be altered by the PC's as they exert their control over the narrative.


----------



## Tuft (Jul 5, 2013)

N'raac said:


> It can be a loose brick in the windowsill.  You paid a point to have a small, heavy object you can drop down on the climbing target.  Of course, once we introduce the ability of the player to unilaterally alter the scenery, we have some questions to answer:
> 
> - is it infallible (I spend a point and get a flowerpot) or fallible (I spend a point and get to roll for the flowerpot to exist)?
> 
> ...




From previous examples, I gathered that *asking* the DM for "what small hard object is there lying around that I can drop on an opponents head?" is *not* narrative control, while positing that specifically a flowerpot is there *is* narrative control.

The flowerpot may have been a trivial example, but its the principle I am asking for here. The cauldron of oil and the SMG were more drastic, especially the latter in a fantasy campaign... 

The three questions you ask: fallible, vetoable, and extent are basically what I also want to know about.



N'raac said:


> To my mind, narrative control would allow the fighter to somehow dictate that these are not automata after all, or that they have mysteriously developed some form of rudimentary sentience so, despite the immunity of automatons in general, taunt affects these ones.  This would then become part of the narrative, changing the evolving storyline.  This would force a GM to be much more improv-focused, as the backstory and assumptions he based the scenario around can, and will, be altered by the PC's as they exert their control over the narrative.




Yes, to me changing that the orcs never were automata would gel with what I've previously been told about Narrative control. 

This to me sounds like an extremely sandboxed game. I do like myself a good improvisational game as a GM, but I'd have a hard time if one of the pillars of the background story got torn out under me (and I know one of my players who'd have *serious* trouble with things being redefined on the fly!). It would be hard to introduce a story of automata infiltrating the world if the fighters taunt would make them *not-automata* in every combat encounter...


----------



## Tuft (Jul 5, 2013)

pemerton said:


> The declared backstory can't contradict the known backstory. That's a pretty standard rule in any game. It applies to the GM just as much as the players! Eg the river can't be 10' wide today and 10 yards wide tomorrow without some ingame causal explanation (eg a lot of rain upstream).




This is making me confused. To me, all examples of non-magical narritive control *have* been about changing the backstory. When you posit that there is a flowerpot on the windowsill, the flowerpot *has always been there* - i.e. you change the past to change the present. When you posit that the you can sneak past the guards because they've been out all night carousing and are passed out with a hangover, you not only change the backstory, but also affect how disciplined said guards appear and their general mien and reputation.



pemerton said:


> Do the orcs have an immunity? Then the GM has to declare that. Maybe the players can work out from that that they're automata.
> 
> Does the player declare CaGI as a taunt, and the automata rush in? They must be programmed to keep their automaton status a secret!




As far as I recall from our trial 4E campaign, there was no way to declare immunity to CaGI, other than rule zero...


----------



## Tuft (Jul 5, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not really. There is plenty of talk in both threads about how martial classes often don't have abilities that one could expect them to have based on those kind of considerations. Skills, psychological abilities, active defense mechanics, et cetera.
> 
> There is plenty of room for all characters to exert influence without metagame abilities.
> 
> So are spellcasters. Their causal capacities are simply different.




For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.




Well, that can be easily added back in.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.




Rules for morale certainly exist in 1e. They seem to have dropped off the radar somewhere between then and Pathfinder.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.



In your experience, they don't. To be fair, I suspect this is probably very typical.

It is also worth noting that some might say that hit points cover morale.

However, I think that the notion of representing psychological factors with explicit mechanics is an interesting and underexplored idea. Real people are sometimes overcome with emotions to the extent that they lose their ability to act voluntarily, or even perform some actions involuntarily; D&D characters aren't often in this position. Heroes of Battle forayed into this area a little bit, but I haven't seen much since then.

And yes, noted as others quickly posted that older versions of D&D did have morale and there are some takes on it that aren't in current core rules but are out there.


----------



## Tuft (Jul 5, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Well, that can be easily added back in.




I should have said "core D&D", shouldn't I? 

Nice motivator illustration in that link, btw.


----------



## Aenghus (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> As far as I recall from our trial 4E campaign, there was no way to declare immunity to CaGI, other than rule zero...




Yes, but the philosphy of 4e isn't to pin down powers as working in a single hard-coded way - they specify effects, suggest but don't enforce the typical appearance of the powers use with flavour text, and leave it up to the referee, player concerned and the group in general  to come up with a plausible explanation for how the power worked. 

For instance, in the case of automata, instinctively feeling a momentary flaw in the programming of the automata. making their movement predictable, and exploiting it might explain a use of Come and Get It. As for an explanation why this can't be repeated, the real reason is that it's boring to spam a power, which is why Come and get it is an encounter power. The group can come up with an in-game explanation why the power can only be used once an encounter if they want, some won't bother. And some players and referees dislike powers like this for various reasons, while others really like them.

Which is a problem. The more situational a power is the less attractive it is. If my feeling as a player is "this power will seldom if work on any important NPC, the referee will always make an excuse or hike the difficulty up till it's likely to fail" I'm much less likely to pick that power.

The problem with infinitely repeatable powers with a low chance of success is that either they traps for the unwary, underpowered or no better than improvised actions, or they are overpowered when successful, and encourage the player to hyperspecialise and keep mashing the boring but effective power button (e.g. trippers in 3.x).

That said, I'm not a gambler and prefer reliability to swinginess, YMMV.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> From previous examples, I gathered that *asking* the DM for "what small hard object is there lying around that I can drop on an opponents head?" is *not* narrative control, while positing that specifically a flowerpot is there *is* narrative control.The flowerpot may have been a trivial example, but its the principle I am asking for here. The cauldron of oil and the SMG were more drastic, especially the latter in a fantasy campaign... The three questions you ask: fallible, vetoable, and extent are basically what I also want to know about.



First let me say this is a good all around post that highlights some of the reservations I have about these types of mechanics... Though for some the simple answer is "make sure everyone is on the same page"... I think that's sort of a cop out when it comes to these types of things. How far and how much leeway do the players get? I know in the LoA version of Fate, it is still up to the GM whether an added detail is acceptable or not but then is that narrative "control" on the part of the player if it can be vetoed by the DM or even table consensus?Let me also state for the record that I do not subscribe to the belief that players will inherently stay within the genre, thematic, etc. boundaries when given abilities like these. Will some? Yes. Will all... I honestly don't believe so, I think some players will push (and even snap) the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable and it is for those players mechanics (including limitations and balances/checks)need to be defined. 







Tuft said:


> Yes, to me changing that the orcs never were automata would gel with what I've previously been told about Narrative control. This to me sounds like an extremely sandboxed game. I do like myself a good improvisational game as a GM, but I'd have a hard time if one of the pillars of the background story got torn out under me (and I know one of my players who'd have *serious* trouble with things being redefined on the fly!). It would be hard to introduce a story of automata infiltrating the world if the fighters taunt would make them *not-automata* in every combat encounter...



I think this raises some important issues as well... First, is the fighter making them non-automata a permanent thing... and if so how does that interact with say anothe player abilities that may affect automata specifically and thus wants them to be automata? Second how is consistency maintained if things are constantly mutable and being changed?


----------



## Tuft (Jul 5, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Rules for morale certainly exist in 1e. They seem to have dropped off the radar somewhere between then and Pathfinder.




My 1E DM was a simulationist in extremis. When he started his campaign he started bt defining how many critters of each level there were on each hex of the map, and then defined how far each level were willing to migrate to nearest population center...

What that in practice meant, was that as we rose in level, we did not meet many high-level opponents, but simply more and more low-level ones. Since he gladly ignored morale, they simply tromped against us in giant columns down the dungon corridors, just to be ground to death on the fighter's swords. It was kind of a fantasy zulu war - spears against machine guns... hundreds upon hundreds of low-level orcs...

The same DM later repeated the same thing in Shadowrun. For some reason rentacop security guards were willing to run mindlessly into machinegun fire to die in scores upon scores... In the end it started to make me feel more and more queasy.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> This is making me confused. To me, all examples of non-magical narritive control *have* been about changing the backstory. When you posit that there is a flowerpot on the windowsill, the flowerpot *has always been there* - i.e. you change the past to change the present. When you posit that the you can sneak past the guards because they've been out all night carousing and are passed out with a hangover, you not only change the backstory, but also affect how disciplined said guards appear and their general mien and reputation.




That question's not directed at me, but if I might weigh in...

To me, the "there is a flowerpot on the windowsill" example can fit four categories:

(a)   The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it is plausible for a flowerpot to be there and the GM's backstory is  not contradicted  by there being a flowerpot.  While it was not planned to be there, it was also not planned *not* to be there.  Thus, no contradiction.  This might come up in play without mechanics as "is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?", and the GM says "no" or "sure, why  not?"

(b)  The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is  contradicted  by there being a flowerpot. Maybe, unknown to the players, the apartment's occupant is very allergic to most plants, which is an important investigative clue or plot point later.  So we now have the question of "GM Veto" based on his knowledge of the bbackstory, or whether his backstory can be overruled by this player ability.  This might come up in play without mechanics as "is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?", and the GM says "no" or, perhaps, "no flowerpot, but there is a knick-knack which looks fairly heavy and solid".  

(c)   The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is  contradicted  by there being a flowerpot or anything similar.  If the background says the furnishings are spartan, no decorations, etc., as that's related to the occupant, then the answer would be "no" absent a narrative control ability that can alter the GM's backstory unilaterally.  In that case, the GM has to revise anything that was impacted by that spartan outlook, or come up on the spot with something that could be there without contradicting the background.

(d)   The contents of the room have been described in enough detail to establish there is no flowerpot on the windowsill.  The only way the player can "find" that desired object is to revise the previously established facts.  Now we are revising an already known fact.  I think that is where pemerton would clearly draw the line - it has already been established in the game that there is no flowerpot, and that can't be revised.  

Another example:  If it has already been established that my character was home-schooled, no one can later introduce the backstory that I met some character in a boarding school we both attended, but if his schooling has not been established in play, then either home schooling or boarding school are open to be established in play.

The question this leaves, for me, is what level of establishe backstory is needed.  If it has not been established in play (only in the GM's notes) that the orcs are really automatons, can the player "force" them not to be automatons, requiring the GM to modify the rest of the scenario, or even game world, to accomodate this, or can his greater knowledge of backstory trump the player's narrative control?  That gets to the "vetoable" aspect.



Tuft said:


> For having wargaming roots, I think morale is severely underdefined in D&D - opponents are always fanatically fighting to the death. They never break, withdraw, retreat, return to harass, etc.




I can only say "not in my games".  I often have notes on the point at which the Bad Guys will flee, surrender, etc.  That can, however, be influenced by in-game events.  If the cowardly Orcs would surrender if, say, a quarter of their number were casualties (or, perhaps, they do not outnumber the PC's at least 3 to 1), but the PC's charge in yelling "No prisoners - slay them all!" that will change "surrender" to "flight if possible; desparate fighting otherwise".  Similarly, the PC's might have a reputation for killing the wounded (deserved or not, but derived from campaign events) which would change the Orcs' approach if they are aware of that reputation.

Funny how so many GM's who complain their PC's never consider flight or surrender play every enemy as a frothing fanatic who will try to beat the PC's with the bloody stumps where his arms once were, never considering any tactic other than fighting to his last breath.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 5, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> It is also worth noting that some might say that hit points cover morale.




Yes. Without wishing to reignite the nature of hit points debate they arguably include an element of morale, if we subscribe to a "not meat" model.



Ahnehnois said:


> However, I think that the notion of representing psychological factors with explicit mechanics is an interesting and underexplored idea. Real people are sometimes overcome with emotions to the extent that they lose their ability to act voluntarily, or even perform some actions involuntarily; D&D characters aren't often in this position.




Indeed. Again, 1e has rules for NPC reactions. They're a hodge-podge of rules, to be fair, but they're still in the RAW.

Applying psychological effects to PCs is more problematic. IME players are often reluctant for their characters to behave in a less than courageous manner--even in Actor stance--despite that being the most likely outcome in a given situation. They can and do retreat when it suits them but they're not so keen to have that forced upon them. I'll admit having been guilty of that myself, on occasion.

The sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu are a (somewhat blunt) mechanic which enable this kind of effect. I recently read an article on the subject that was more D&D-centric but can't for the life of me remember where it was, off hand.



Ahnehnois said:


> And yes, noted as others quickly posted that older versions of D&D did have morale and there are some takes on it that aren't in current core rules but are out there.




Thanks for the link


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> My 1E DM was a simulationist in extremis. When he started his campaign he started bt defining how many critters of each level there were on each hex of the map, and then defined how far each level were willing to migrate to nearest population center...
> 
> What that in practice meant, was that as we rose in level, we did not meet many high-level opponents, but simply more and more low-level ones. Since he gladly ignored morale, they simply tromped against us in giant columns down the dungon corridors, just to be ground to death on the fighter's swords. It was kind of a fantasy zulu war - spears against machine guns... hundreds upon hundreds of low-level orcs...
> 
> The same DM later repeated the same thing in Shadowrun. For some reason rentacop security guards were willing to run mindlessly into machinegun fire to die in scores upon scores... In the end it started to make me feel more and more queasy.




Ouch! Sounds like his simulation was lacking in certain areas


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 5, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> Indeed. Again, 1e has rules for NPC reactions. They're a hodge-podge of rules, to be fair, but they're still in the RAW.



Not arguing that. They're not present in the core of PF or 4e, which are usually what we're discussing at ENW.



> Applying psychological effects to PCs is more problematic. IME players are often reluctant for their characters to behave in a less than courageous manner--even in Actor stance--despite that being the most likely outcome in a given situation. They can and do retreat when it suits them but they're not so keen to have that forced upon them. I'll admit having been guilty of that myself, on occasion.



That is true. It's a fine line. If you want to simulate the effects of combat, but allow the players to feel they're controlling they're characters, those two ends can conflict.



> The sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu are a (somewhat blunt) mechanic which enable this kind of effect.



Indeed. It is very blunt, but it is also reality-based and makes clear to the players that sometimes, as with real people, characters are not in control of their own actions.


----------



## Mike Eagling (Jul 5, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not arguing that. They're not present in the core of PF or 4e, which are usually what we're discussing at ENW.




I didn't think you were 



Ahnehnois said:


> Indeed. It is very blunt, but it is also reality-based and makes clear to the players that sometimes, as with real people, characters are not in control of their own actions.




Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of CoC and have no qualms about the sanity rules. I personally think there should be more of this kind of thing in RPGs.


----------



## Tuft (Jul 5, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> That is true. It's a fine line. If you want to simulate the effects of combat, but allow the players to feel they're controlling they're characters, those two ends can conflict.
> 
> Indeed. It is very blunt, but it is also reality-based and makes clear to the players that sometimes, as with real people, characters are not in control of their own actions.




This is one other important aspect where the perception of magical and non-magical differ. I know players who would have no problem being hit with a magical fear effect, but would balk att having to play out being hit with a good Intimidate skill roll.

Above I collected three important questions from  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]:
* Fallability?
* Vetoability?
* Extent?

To this I would like to add a fourth:
* Symmetry?

Meaning "What symmetry should there be between a PC affecting an NPC and the reverse? (Not to mention PC vs PC and NPC vs NPC...)"


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> This is one other important aspect where the perception of magical and non-magical differ. I know players who would have no problem being hit with a magical fear effect, but would balk att having to play out being hit with a good Intimidate skill roll.



A lot of that I think is just the culture of the game and the expectations one has going in. If I'm going to play D&D, I expect to control my character, and I expect him to be very effective at most things he would try to do. If I sign up for CoC, I expect that my character may lose his mind and I expect that my character will routinely fail and be ineffective.

Trying to convince D&D players that their character lost his turn because the violence around him caused him to throw up is an uphill battle, and one that may or may not be a good thing to pursue, depending on one's perspective.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> This is making me confused. To me, all examples of non-magical narritive control *have* been about changing the backstory. When you posit that there is a flowerpot on the windowsill, the flowerpot *has always been there* - i.e. you change the past to change the present.



In the post of mine to which this is a reply, I talked about changing the _known_ backstory. As-yet undeclared or unauthored backstory is fair game.

So if the GM has already described the bare windowsills of the monk's Spartan cells, no flower pots. You'll have to try for a loose brick instead. (Which, in a system based on die rolls rather than auto-success from limited resources, might be a harder DC.)

But if no one has described the window sill yet, and if we haven't already established in play that these monks aschew all adornment in their cells, then a flower pot is fair game. Of course that might move things in a different direction from what the GM was anticipating - that's the point of narrative control in the hands of the players!

I think  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] spelled some of this out in more detail.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 5, 2013)

Tuft said:


> This is one other important aspect where the perception of magical and non-magical differ. I know players who would have no problem being hit with a magical fear effect, but would balk att having to play out being hit with a good Intimidate skill roll.
> 
> Above I collected three important questions from  @_*N'raac*_:
> * Fallability?
> ...




I think these are all quite valid questions, and the symmetry issue is a very real one.  It's odd that players accept, if they want to be resistant to magical fear, the character needs good will saves, whether from class, WIS and/or feats, class abilities, etc., but non-magical fear?  They can have a 6 WIS, poor will saves, no bonuses from class, race, etc. but their PC should be impossible to intimidate because they say so.

My preference is symmetry.  You want resistance/immunity, dedicate character resources within the rules to get there, under the same resource constraints applicable to NPCs.  You want blanket immunity because "my character wouldn't do that", then the NPC's have the same right to immunity if the GM thinks the characte wouldn't do that.

If we want characters in general to be heroic and courageous, then the DC's to make anyone/thing behave otherwise should be raised accordingly.



pemerton said:


> In the post of mine to which this is a reply, I talked about changing the _known_ backstory. As-yet undeclared or unauthored backstory is fair game.
> 
> So if the GM has already described the bare windowsills of the monk's Spartan cells, no flower pots. You'll have to try for a loose brick instead. (Which, in a system based on die rolls rather than auto-success from limited resources, might be a harder DC.)
> 
> ...




All of which matches my interpretation of your comments.  One question not answered above:  the GM has not describe the bare, unadorned cell yet, but it is established in his setting notes that it is bare and unadorned.  The player announces his search for a flowerpot before the GM gets to that aspect of the description.  Do the GM notes override, or does the player get his flowerpot?  If the latter, should the player interrupt the flow to get what he wants (eg. "We open the door - I call an armory filled with magical weapons behind it!")?  How much leeway does the GM get to override player narrative control based on things he knows that the players don't?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 6, 2013)

N'raac said:


> One question not answered above:  the GM has not describe the bare, unadorned cell yet, but it is established in his setting notes that it is bare and unadorned.  The player announces his search for a flowerpot before the GM gets to that aspect of the description.  Do the GM notes override, or does the player get his flowerpot?  If the latter, should the player interrupt the flow to get what he wants (eg. "We open the door - I call an armory filled with magical weapons behind it!")?  How much leeway does the GM get to override player narrative control based on things he knows that the players don't?



Well, in a game based on narrational authority of the sort we're talking about here, the GM probably shouldn't have that sort of detail in his/her notes. That's a bit of a blunt way to put it, but the basic idea is that the GM should only establish important reveals - stuff that matters. In the typical campaign the presence or absence of flowerpots probaby doesn't satisfy that criterion.

In all the games I'm familiar with that utilise these sorts of mechanics, a table agreement on genre is important - so the GM can sketch a scene in a fairly straightforward way, relying on shared genre tropes to flesh things out in the players' minds; and so the players can exercise narrative authority of the sort we're talking about here without disrupting the shared fiction (at one point the Burning Wheel rulebook suggests "no beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet").


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 7, 2013)

As far as I can tell there are a few fundamental disconnects going on here that are clouding the issue of spellcaster breadth of conflict resolution power (and their corresponding ability to impose their will upon the narrative relative to their mundane counterparts) either being a non-issue or being able to be resolved GM-side.  Some of all of these maybe carried by various participants.

1 - There is an implicit setting assumption of pervasive magic such that barkeeps, merchants, lords, and scoundrels alike all have a healthy dose of exposure to, and understanding of, magic.  There appears to be an assumption that spellcasting PCs are in no way extraordinary, that all Kings and Councils will have a Court Mage, that all monstrous adversaries will have tangled with, survived, and learned to identify and strategically/tactically deal with spellcasting opponents.

2 - There is an assumption that GMs should have internalized the reality that their game should consist of an arms race or a rock/paper/scissors match with spellcasters (and somehow this ironically doesn't reveal that, if you must do this, and clearly you must as most modules make special note of their efforts to circumvent spellcaster plot derailment and encounter trivializing, that casters do in fact have more breadth, scope and potency of scene (re)framing).  Further, there is an assumption that GMs who do not wish to adopt this adversarial approach to spellcasters have no experience with this type of GMing.

With respect to 1, I see a great many responses and interchanges just presupposing this and then subsequent incredulity when folks don't work from this presupposition and accept responses based off of this premise.  (A) In my games, my spellcaster PCs are special.  Magic is not so pervasive as to be common enough that most anyone would understand the myriad mysticism of a Charm spell.  If the rules are agnostic on things, then I am not going to adopt an adversarial position, change my implied setting and suddenly start assuming that Court Mages are ever-accompanying all council members, that Bards are always traveling with merchants to chronicle their financial endeavors, that all innkeeps "know a thing or two about a thing or two (including magic)", etc.  (B) Even if I accept the premise that magic is pervasive and PC spellcasters are not unique, I fundamentally do not accept that exposure to magic would make layfolk, and primitive monsters, and bourgeoise suddenly learned in the art such that they can reliably be expected to identify magical gestures, incantations and specific spells especially.  We live in the information age, a vast technocracy where all that you could want to know is a point and click or an easy library excursion away.  All of this available information and exposure to phenomena and your average person is utterly unlearned about their home plumbing infrastructure, the pitch of their roof, insurance policy provisions and exclusions (specifically homeowners and medical), how to change oil/brakes/air filter on their vehicle (all outrageously simple and considerably cost effective), how to cook more than a few dishes (if that), the proper maintenance schedule of their HVAC system, how to properly budget and account, and god help you if you ask them whether the Soviet Union or Italy was allied with the Allied Powers of WWII.  These are ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL to your average person's existence.  If this is true in the modern era (with all of the infrastructure and exposure in place to make it not so), then why in the world would we presuppose that layfolk, primitive monsters, and bourgeoise are arcane adepts (or at least functional).  The only reason I could assume that is a gamist/pawn stance agenda that needs it in play to manage an arms race versus, and a rock/paper/scissors game with, PC spellcasters who predominate conflict resolution from mid to high level onward.

With respect to 2, I know myself personally (and assuredly many/most others) are extremely adept with, and considerably exposed to, classic Gygaxian Pawn Stance, Gamist 1e Dungeon Crawl GMing.  I know every single trick in the book to challenge or outright "handle" spellcasters.  And I also know just how many of the power plays expected in tournament play were utterly, utterly contingent upon having the correct spell in play (which is why groups generally defaulted to 6-8 PCs so spell-resource breadth was properly covered).  Its great fun for that style of game.  However, I don't want that in play in my standard, long-running campaigns.  I don't like the fiction it creates, I don't like the muddled, genre hijinx that burgeons forth from it, I don't like trying to massage that genre with GM force after its gone pear-shaped (due to the clown shoes and spinnig bowties of a non-stop cavalcade of 10 ft pole prodding, ear monsters to stop listening at doors, drowning dungeons with decanters and jumping into haversacks for infiltration or damage avoidance), I don't like juggling the mental overhead that comes from the incoherent coupling of Gygaxian adversarial GMing with fiction-first, genre-logic GMing, and I don't like the table dynamic it induces twixt PC and GM.  I'll take one or the other but not both simultaneously.  I don't want haggling or table handling time over fiddly resource accounting (spell components) and I'm of the same mind with respect to serial accounting for granular units of time (with respect to spell durations) and GM-forced, contrived metagaming (not fiction-first, genre-logic...flat out gamist metagaming) of pressures to consistently prevent 15 MWD scenarios.

Beyond that, I see answers in this thread to common spellcaster issues that aren't just contrived, spellcaster-specifically, metagamed, adversarial approaches but they honestly just don't work out in play.  "Why, if any of my Wizard PCs ever dared to consider flying off and scouting out the mountain by themself (while the Fighter et al climbs...slowly...and exposed), well they would learn their lesson the hard way as here comes a random encounter of wyverns (or whatever) to eat their lunch!!!..."  Yeah, except if he's flying over the mountain to scout it out, he's assuredly invisible (possibly improved invis) and has something like hold monster/slow or some other SoS to end an encounter and potentially have his flying, bestial adversaries (which wouldn't have been able to see him in the first place) falling to their death after their failed (extremely poor) Will save/defense is bypassed.  Then I see assumptions of heavily fortifying mundanes with large amounts of magic items (what absolutely must be vastly askew of WBL guidelines in order to get the derived numbers) while spellcasters having access to even a few of their items du jour (maybe a few scrolls and a wand or two...of which they can make and have PC build resources committed to making them so the GM doesn't even need to award them) is scoffed at.  And then I see a proposed ruling of which if turned on its head would cause enormous problems at a table if deployed by a PC versus monsters; imagine a Druid PC casting a 6th level control spell on a pack of Giants and the Giants jumping on each others shoulders to cheesily, metagamily bypass the RAW and spirit of the spell (both the damage and movement portion...not even just one of the two control elements...both) via exploitation of encumbrance rules interfacing with the RAW loophole in the text of the 6th level control spell.

There are so many fundamental disconnects to get past that it seems pointless to even attempt to further converse on these issues.  I expect our games wouldn't look terribly unfamiliar to each another but our table agendas and resultant expectations are worlds apart.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 7, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> 1 - There is an implicit setting assumption of pervasive magic such that barkeeps, merchants, lords, and scoundrels alike all have a healthy dose of exposure to, and understanding of, magic.  There appears to be an assumption that spellcasting PCs are in no way extraordinary, that all Kings and Councils will have a Court Mage, that all monstrous adversaries will have tangled with, survived, and learned to identify and strategically/tactically deal with spellcasting opponents.




I find various editions have moved magic from Mystery to Commodity.  Wizards, for example, learn 2 new spells per level.  Those must come from somewhere, but can at least be explained by Wizardly Research (ie innovative discovery, rather than learning the spell from someone who already knows it).   But we then get the "MagicMart".  The player wants more spells, so he goes out and gets some scrolls to learn from.  The presumption that the Wizard has the right spell for every occasion implies ready access to such spells.  

Are the commoners familiar with all this magic?  Probably not, unless we've pushed this commoditization to an extreme.  But who cares?  The PC's opposition isn't typically a bunch of commoners anyway.  It seems wholly reasonable to expect the PC's enemies will be as competent as they are (often, their major opponents are more experienced than they are), so assuming the PCs are the only ones aware of all of these tactics, strategies and spell combinations seems unreasonable to me.

If magic is rare and mysterious, and PC spellcasters are near-unique, how is it we can buy spellbooks, magical ink and even scrolls of any spell one can imagine (which are obviously well known enough for the PC to enquire about a scroll of that spell in the first place)?  Where do those enchanted arms and armor, and other items that the opposition seems to have in abundance, come from?

A setting where magic is rare, mysterious and unknown seems fine to me, but that's not the baseline assumption in 3e, based on the ease of accessing magical objects, spells, etc.  "Magic is rare, mysterious and unknown" and "Another +1 weapon - throw it in the Bag of Holding so we can sell it for another thousand gold back in town, and pay to upgrade Sir Rodney's magical battle axe to a +4 effective bonus.  Hey, Rodney, have you gone over the price list and figured out what you want from your upgrade?" seem, somehow, less than consistent with one another.

I also expect our games wouldn't look terribly unfamiliar to each another - and that the martial characters aren't all quitting because the wizards are so much more powerful, useful, and fun to play.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 7, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Well, in a game based on narrational authority of the sort we're talking about here, the GM probably shouldn't have that sort of detail in his/her notes. That's a bit of a blunt way to put it, but the basic idea is that the GM should only establish important reveals - stuff that matters. In the typical campaign the presence or absence of flowerpots probaby doesn't satisfy that criterion.




The flowerpots are a pretty high detail example. Of course, the GM might be aware that the occupant is a bizarre creature whose odd qualities include a "black thumb", such that plants wither and die if left in his presence, having flowerpots on his windowsill seems unlikely. Or if he is a disguised alien who has no need or desire for "decoration" and can't fathom why these earthlings do, so there are no extraneous objects on the windowsill.

The Orcish Automatons being forced to become Orcs vulnerable to mind-affecting Taunts is a much better example of GM knowledge which precludes a player desire for reasons they don't currently know.

For myself, "is there a flowerpot or something similar on the windowsill - I want to chuck it down on the climber's head", assuming no issues that would suggest there is, or is not, is simply resolved by a random chance, or just "no reason why not - sure, there is a flowerpot there". We don't need a feat to let the player request a flowerpot, or a points mechanism where there can be no flowerpot because he's spent all his Scenery Points for the day.

Nor am I sure it’s a good thing if the request for a flowerpot being denied automatically tells the players that the absence of a flowerpot is very significant.  Maybe it is, though – it explains some of those quantum leaps of deduction often present in the source materials, as it focuses the players on the issues that are, in fact, relevant, and away from red herrings, where casual observers would never think about WHY that absence of flowerpots is significant, or what it might mean.


----------



## Starfox (Jul 24, 2013)

Back home. 

Read up on Forge. I did indeed mean Director stance (forge) when I said Author stance, and I meant either Actor or Author stance (forge) when I said Actor stance.

I have some comments on Forge and how it was presented, but I'm not sure this is the right place tho discuss such things. Besides, I'd be commenting on essays that are several years old, so I guess I'd be rolling open doors for doors already passed through.


----------

