Plot agency: for the martial character


Homebrew and House Rules

151 to 186 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Is it fair to say that player agency lies on a spectrum.

GM dictated novel <-----------------------> freeform player improv

A standard AP sits somewhere in the middle.
A sandbox adventure like Slumbering Tsar lies closer to the right.
Something like the old dragon lance saga adventures lie closer to the left.

Am I right in thinking we don't want too much railroading because that is dull for the players and we don't want too much agency because then the DM has no campaign plot.

Or is the feeling that there can never be too much player agency?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:


Or is the feeling that there can never be too much player agency?

Not really. Player Agency is awesome. The game is supposed to be a living world. I always find myself annoyed whenever bandits, animals or most intelligent creatures fight to bitter death instead of fleeing or yielding.

Basically a Fighter has only one real way of affecting the game world and that is through his skill points of which he gets very few of and his ability to make things dead by hitting it with a big stick or shooting it with a bunch of little sticks.

Since skills are locked into the realm of the mundane, there are huge swaths of encounters/adventures/hooks that the Fighter simply can't participate in as much due to lacking the know-how or magical ability.

And that sucks! Nobody wants to sit at a table with nothing interesting to contribute.


Anzyr wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:

So in your game, "narrative-wise" its only applicable towards whether someone participates, if its an action exclusive to their class (something only their class gets to do? we're holding the fighter to that definition right?)

You are completely missing the point of the argument. So lets try having you answer a different question to help make it clearer:

What does the actual Fighter class add to help a player influence a narrative?

Because I'm going to assume that you know that players can shape the narrative by simply participating in it. The issue is not that a person who is playing Fighter cannot affect the narrative. They can. The issue is that the Fighter class gives less tools to do so then any other class.

Jack wants to talk to the guards? He's better off being virtually any other class. If he was, he'd be more effective at changing the narrative in this manner.

Jen wants to rally an army to fight against the encroaching orc horde? Again, the fighter class has nothing to contribute to this.

Mike wants to slip into a guarded place unnoticed? He's better off being virtually any other class since they have actual tools to help him do that.

Kelly wants to declare that someone who was dead isn't anymore? Better not pick the Fighter class, since there are other classes that will actually help her do this.

David wants to locate a criminal mastermind whose behind a string of murders? Again, the best choice for this is not going to be a Fighter.

Annie wants to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up while the adults are talking? Again... she's better off not being a Fighter.

Ok, this caught my eye as I was getting caught up on the thread, and highlights what, for me anywhay, is some of the disconnect in the Caster-Martial argument as well as plot agency.

Now, the fighter CAN do some of these things -- perhaps not as well as the other classes, but they aren't impossible for them -- and are certainly things I'd like to see increased for them without stepping on other's toes. So sure, sneaking in, talking to guards, investigating, or even raising armies sound grand. Some class features, more skill points, and I think this would be golden.

Raising the dead or "telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up" -- I assume arcane casting here -- aren't things that I'm looking for in my martials, or the fighter in specific. Increased abilities? Enhanced movement? All but supernatural rallying, bravery, and intimidation? Sure.

Fireballs and gravity manipulation and reviving the dead and so on? That doesn't scream "fighter" in my ear, nor really martial.

There's a point where we have to acknowledge that "plot agency" shouldn't mean "one man band". And yes, I'm in the camp that the martials should be raised up and the casters should be taken down a notch or six. I'm of a mind that, as has been noted before, that this is and should be a team sport. You should need the other classes and while there may be overlap, it shouldn't be to the detriment of another class. There should be things that you need another class's assistance with in some way.

It likely isn't a popular school of thought, but it's one I'm happy with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Instead of theoretical situations, I'm going to talk about an actual campaign from a published Adventure Path.

Of course, I just finished Wrath of the Righteous, which is mythic. Mythic magnifies the disparity so it's easier to see earlier, and it actually helps let martials do a lot more. But it let's wizards do even more.

Wrath of the Righteous:

Book 4 would be a slog without easy access to teleportation, flight, and planeshift. It's a sandbox on another plane, but nobody should want to slowly march through demon infested lands with a non-magic party.

Book 5 is more planar madness, with lots of trapped prisoners who once again need things like disintegrate, planeshift, and greater teleport just to function.

By book 6 it was clear the rest of the party was simply a colorful escort for the Sorceress who was the only one who could accomplish the final sealing of the world wound. We only fought encounters because she held back once we realized that maximized augmented mythic meteorswarm will kill anything dead. Anything. Sure, she could only do that a few times a day. But more than enough times to defeat all of the bosses leading up to the final stage. Without passwall, teleport, flight, dimensional lock, comprehend languages, and other spells, the final task is impossible.

So a party without a caster would need to be pretending to be casters using magic items and Use Magic Device. Or be escorts to an NPC wizard who, once again, does all the important tasks.

Edit: The game expects wizards and clerics at higher levels. The most use a fighter has is as bodyguard for the first few squishy levels until the casters are high enough level to do everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What things can be better done by mundane means than through magic?

Just about the only things I can think of are building long-term relationships and (possibly) architecture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wall of Stone saves a lot of time when building anything.
Stone Shape adds detail.
And Flesh to Stone is a great way to decorate your architecture with life-like statues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've found well built martial characters are better at completing certain encounters with minimal resource expenditure.

Also oftentimes less likely to be murdered in ambush situations.


The Sword wrote:

Is it fair to say that player agency lies on a spectrum.

GM dictated novel <-----------------------> freeform player improv

To this point, I agree with you I think.

The Sword wrote:

A standard AP sits somewhere in the middle.

A sandbox adventure like Slumbering Tsar lies closer to the right.
Something like the old dragon lance saga adventures lie closer to the left.

I don't think that tracks. (with exceptions given for railroading and prison-break-style) The adventure that you're running doesn't suddenly make a caster less capable, or a martial more.

The Sword wrote:

Am I right in thinking we don't want too much railroading because that is dull for the players and we don't want too much agency because then the DM has no campaign plot.

Or is the feeling that there can never be too much player agency?

Good question. Can there be too much player agency? I mean, the GM is another player and he's got quite a bit of agency. :)

Most of the player agency I see is small scale (but potentially large impact...teleport for example). That doesn't strike me as something that prevents a GM from having a plot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I've found well built martial characters are better at completing certain encounters with minimal resource expenditure.

Also oftentimes less likely to be murdered in ambush situations.

The first one, definitely. The only thing you usually need to worry about running low on with a martial character is hit points.

The second one kinda varies. They're less likely to die when bushwhacked with a coup de grace attempt in their sleep but if the party gets ambushed in the bath the sorcerer still has all the spells they have left for the day to defend themselves with while the slayer goes scrambling for their weapons and armor.

This is admittedly one of the reasons I think the Called weapon enchant deserves more respect. Leave your sword at the door for the masquerade ball, but when something goes wrong, as it inevitably does at any masquerade, you're one swift action away from being ready to rumble.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Damn, this thread got moved to a quarantine board. It's essentially dead now.

Also HP wasn't what I meant since a well build martial should rarely ever lose HP. What I meant were things like rage rounds, minute increments of animal focus, ammunition, ect. Stuff that's free or so cheap it may as well be free.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Damn, this thread got moved to a quarantine board. It's essentially dead now.

Also HP wasn't what I meant since a well build martial should rarely ever lose HP. What I meant were things like rage rounds, minute increments of animal focus, ammunition, ect. Stuff that's free or so cheap it may as well be free.

What the duece?

In about 3000 posts (maybe more) of the few of these kind of threads, I think this one actually helped clarify what is arguably the most divisive and inflammatory topic on the boards.

Are you sure they didn't mean to make it sticky and just tagged it wrong?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah they don't like...ever sticky something.


I can't find the link to the C/MD thread database. I know this was added, but I've never seen the database.

Is there a section in it for "peaceably resolved"?


Arbane the Terrible wrote:

What things can be better done by mundane means than through magic?

Just about the only things I can think of are building long-term relationships and (possibly) architecture.

For the most part, magic can top non-magical in most situations. Just like technology IRL, it provides a beyond human dimension. There are times when pure stealth or a disguise kit are best - typically to defeat a magical detecting situation.

With magic being part of the system of fantasy RPGs going back to its roots, it changes aspects of the game. Magic treasure is way more cool in my opinion than just gold or free weapons in the loot. The ability over time to acquire and use magic items of all sorts is a foundational element of D&D/PF in my opinion. Mechanically of course, the system also assumes you eventually have more advantages than just your BAB or armor/shield.

That being said, as we've been working through the spells on another set of threads, most GMs have agreed that when certain spells that overcome basic real world issues like climbing (fly) or overland travel (teleport) the players have evolved to a point (or have experienced enough walking/campout sessions to be done enjoying them).

I wouldn't want every class to have casting as an innate ability though, or wild-shape or hunters mark, channel..etc. What makes the game fun for groups I'm in is the variety at the table, if everyone can cast fireball or turn into a bear, etc its not that cool in the group anymore or fun see how each person will address the problem posed to the group.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I can't find the link to the C/MD thread database. I know this was added, but I've never seen the database.

Is there a section in it for "peaceably resolved"?

There is no "peaceably resolved". There is locked, and there is waiting. Time shall pass and leaves shall fall and searches shall run through it all. A poster will come by here by chance and rekindle flames now scant. You think this over, course be run? It only sleeps. It's scarce begun.

Also, House Rules is not a "quarantine board". It's where this thread belongs. The only reason the House Rules section is seen as less significant is because it hosts fewer flamewars and pointless arguments, and therefore gets fewer viewers.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also oftentimes less likely to be murdered in ambush situations.

Sure, unless the ambush situation involves a lack of magic items, in which case most martials are screwed again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I can't find the link to the C/MD thread database. I know this was added, but I've never seen the database.

Is there a section in it for "peaceably resolved"?

Might not have occurred before, Jiggy will have to have a new section.

I think more than that - I think usefully explored an enlightening to both sides.

I'm trying to work out what to put into a little cliff-notes on making the dialogue more useful for others. I think we uncovered some key misunderstandings and ways to more clearly demonstrate what each other means.

I'll do my part to be a peace maker on my end trying to lay it out where I can.

Probably the biggest thing I appreciated on your part was when I kept pressing for -what it was- you were using to label the fighter as having "none" you worked it out and dialogued. when the easier thing to do would have been to just move on, or go ballistic assuming I was just trying to antagonize you. Thanks for the patience and maturity.


I almost did a few times, but then I realized that you were experiencing genuine confusion. It's a lot harder to tell on these boards, but it was definitely there. I probably only noticed because of all the experience I have as a tutor.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
I almost did a few times, but then I realized that you were experiencing genuine confusion. It's a lot harder to tell on these boards, but it was definitely there. I probably only noticed because of all the experience I have as a tutor.

Tough on the web. That's why I caveated a couple times that I wasn't trying to as well. Of course...that doesn't always matter. If I had a dime for every time someone in the Army said, "No disrespect intended sir but....". Which most of the time really means, *I'm about to say something that can be taken in no other way but disrespectful.*

I think the confusion point is right on, I was like "are we playing the same game??"

A big piece I took away is its almost (like 95%) impossible to discuss this without thinking "no participation/agency/etc?" what does that -player- do all night? So then there is a personal attachment aspect almost like "I have friends who play a fighter, or I play one....I'm participating in my sessions a lot. don't try to tell me I'm not because you're being foolish." That's not often going to lead to rational discussion - at least long enough to get anywhere.

So getting to the point of agreement that - the player is doing all kind of things and presumably having fun (or why keep playing?) is big.

Its at the root class level the mechanics, and in particular those supernatural (not necessarily pure magic) things that fighters don't have but would make them more unique in or out of combat.

As I've been thinking about it...to be honest we house ruled a few things early on that probably subconsciously show I wanted fighters to be able to do more cool things (frankly...they're one of the only classes that -are- just trying to do things with swords/axes...why not let them do it cool, its a historic aspect of the game) I give 4 skill slots, allow TWF to get to 0/0 pen with a 19 dex, and give all the combat maneuvers out by taking just 1 in that tree.

that being said it'll still drive me crazy when I read someone say "none/almost never/etc". I'm not sure they all mean what you mean :)...maybe they do, I'll at least have a better idea of what to ask them now.


Quote:

Its at the root class level the mechanics, and in particular those supernatural (not necessarily pure magic) things that fighters don't have but would make them more unique in or out of combat.

I do think it's important to note that the abilities to increase agency do not have to be supernatural, even simply like track, favoured enemy or the cavalier's minor non-combat abilities from their order can increase agency to a degree.


I think a lot of his to do with what sort of story is being told too.

If your story is medieval fantasy and more akin to Conan or Game of Thrones the character optimization level wouldn't be the same as a game where the end goal is to say, overthrow the gods of Olympus.

In my games it's not uncommon for players to shoot for that really high goal even if they will never reach that level. Some people are only happy if you shoot for that level. Some people think shooting for that level is the wrong way to play the game.

What we can agree on is that if you're aiming for that level of strength and agency, that most classes in the game wont cut it for you.


Usually, at least in my experience, the people who talk about mechanics tend to want to look at things through that lense. That's why they tend to be dismissive of roleplay related solutions because they are not addressing what they are actually talking about.


Trogdar wrote:
Usually, at least in my experience, the people who talk about mechanics tend to want to look at things through that lense. That's why they tend to be dismissive of roleplay related solutions because they are not addressing what they are actually talking about.

I personally think the wording of "If the topic is about x, people tend to be dismissive of talk about y" in more accurate. Since I don't think "talk about mechanics tend to want to look at things through that lense" applies to most people I know who talk about mechanics.


Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:

Its at the root class level the mechanics, and in particular those supernatural (not necessarily pure magic) things that fighters don't have but would make them more unique in or out of combat.

I do think it's important to note that the abilities to increase agency do not have to be supernatural, even simply like track, favoured enemy or the cavalier's minor non-combat abilities from their order can increase agency to a degree.

Agreed. Supernatural wasn't the best word choice, as I was thinking more along the lines of what you described - maybe heroic is a better term - although still nebulous.

I feel its important to have a class that doesn't use magic (innately), as its something that does make how they do what they do unique.

Yes, they'll use magic weapons armor and devices but you really only need those from mechanic standpoint since its part of the system progression difficulty. Like has been mentioned if your GM will give you auto bonus progression, you might be able to get by with just flavor texting that part.

So I think that gets down to what kind of out of combat mechanics could they get over time that nobody else gets (even if it just adds to something like some specific skill checks - but its a type of bonus that no other class gets?

And a similar periodic progression for in combat. Some kind of unique combat mechanics/tricks that only the fighter gets.


I usually prefer things other than bonuses. Skill bonuses can potentially run into dimishing returns due to how skills natively function.

I think it would be nice to see some class abilities on non casters that just function in a given circumstance rather than something akin to having a plus twenty on a skill role you never need to get above fifteen.

Fighters could cause graduating fear effects to npc's below a certain cr threshold for example. Theres no save, but the fighter could choose to supress the effect for a number of people equal to twice his level. Hes so lethal that his presence alone is enough to cow people. Thats the kind of agency that casters tend to have. also, it has interesting interactions like making crowds part before him in crowded cities, which is awesome.


Milo v3 wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Usually, at least in my experience, the people who talk about mechanics tend to want to look at things through that lense. That's why they tend to be dismissive of roleplay related solutions because they are not addressing what they are actually talking about.
I personally think the wording of "If the topic is about x, people tend to be dismissive of talk about y" in more accurate. Since I don't think "talk about mechanics tend to want to look at things through that lense" applies to most people I know who talk about mechanics.

The thing is, language is hard to decipher sometimes. People can be using the same words as you and mean different things entirely, just look at ID and GM1990. Whenever I read threads with the usual suspects, I often wonder if there are multiple conversations going on and no ones actually talking too each other, just at each other.


Trogdar wrote:
The thing is, language is hard to decipher sometimes. People can be using the same words as you and mean different things entirely, just look at ID and GM1990. Whenever I read threads with the usual suspects, I often wonder if there are multiple conversations going on and no ones actually talking too each other, just at each other.

As a usual suspect I do hope that I end up talking with rather than at more often than not. But yeah, talking at each other happens a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
Usually, at least in my experience, the people who talk about mechanics tend to want to look at things through that lense. That's why they tend to be dismissive of roleplay related solutions because they are not addressing what they are actually talking about.

Its a little of what Insain and I got worked through. Not necessarily dismissive, because it might just be you're both playing the same game, same classes, (maybe even the same type of adventures) but due to different styles actually see different things at your game.

Campaign 1: might be more mechanics focused. Even if you RP out a lot of things, at some point the PC has to pass a skill check or is doing a mechanic only they can do but requires a dice check. There might be a little more combat, again a little more mechanics focused. There are dice rolls and roleplaying interaction for everyone every session, but things tend to lean more heavily (not exclusively though) on resolving things with the dice.

Campaign 2: less mechanics focused. You roleplay out more things and maybe even just fewer "true" skill challenges. Players like to engage in story telling leaving a little less time for dice. Combats are still an integral part of the game. There are dice rolls and roleplaying interactions for everyone every session, but things tend to lean more heavily on player interaction and roleplaying (not exclusively though), than resolving things with the dice.

Those two groups aren't miles apart in playing style, but they are far enough apart that something in the mechanics may show up and be obvious to players in campaign 1, while maybe not showing up at all or at least not being noticed to the players in campaign 2. I think it could happen with the exact same class mix - but when you consider the more like scenario of both games having completely different class mixes (except each has a fighter), system experience, and personalities. Pretty easy to happen.

I think that's what leads to this topic being confusing, and normally spiraling quickly into flaming. Both people are reading what the other person says and thinking, "I play the same game, if that was a problem I'd have seen it!! You must be implying I'm a fool?" or "I play the same game, how can you not see this?? You must be implying I'm a fool?"

At least that's what I think I've been experiencing in these discussions up till yesterday.


Yeah, maybe dismissive is the wrong word. Its like asking for a napkin and getting an orange, you know what I mean?


I generally try to be empathetic in these discussions, but honestly most people who engage in these discussions are so invested in protecting their position that they can't even see anything else.


*Empathic

I really doubt your ever empathetic ID :)


Trogdar wrote:

I usually prefer things other than bonuses. Skill bonuses can potentially run into dimishing returns due to how skills natively function.

I think it would be nice to see some class abilities on non casters that just function in a given circumstance rather than something akin to having a plus twenty on a skill role you never need to get above fifteen.

Fighters could cause graduating fear effects to npc's below a certain cr threshold for example. Theres no save, but the fighter could choose to supress the effect for a number of people equal to twice his level. Hes so lethal that his presence alone is enough to cow people. Thats the kind of agency that casters tend to have. also, it has interesting interactions like making crowds part before him in crowded cities, which is awesome.

That's kind of something along the lines I was contemplating. When I was helping my son make his fighter, we looked at Dazzling Display - sounds cool, but -full round action- and you might fail to do anything. Yes...all "who see you" in 30' can be affected, but I think I'd rather have a guarantee of it affecting 1 if possible. Maybe a spin off on that? it fits the theme of a bad man with a weapon too.

It would be useful if the party could "convince" someone to do something w/o risking getting tossed in jail. Diplomacy rolls only go so far.

I know the magic answer is charm/dominate/etc, but in some campaign settings that's not going to be acceptable to the group dynamics or probably the person you did it to.


Trogdar wrote:

*Empathic

I really doubt your ever empathetic ID :)

And now I'm confused....


Trogdar wrote:

*Empathic

I really doubt your ever empathetic ID :)

I think this is the word I wanted http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empathetic


lol, sorry, Empathic is the correct term even though they have added empathetic to the lexicon. Showing empathy is never pathetic.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
I generally try to be empathetic in these discussions, but honestly most people who engage in these discussions are so invested in protecting their position that they can't even see anything else.

True. We're only human. But hey..we get a bonus feat and skill rank/level....so we got that going for us. Which is nice.


I was also just thinking - Poor @werewolf435

we kind of derailed his initial request....and apparently got it tossed into another thread bank. Sorry werewolf.

But....what if the work we've done here actually leads to an end of the martials don't have enough narrative power/agency/etc debate; and he would have started the discussion? He could put that on his Paizo resume.

151 to 186 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Plot agency: for the martial character All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules