Are there any classes that lack narrative power?

[mgshamster]

I've seen quite a few people claim that martial classes still lack narrative power and are rather useless. Fighters and rogues can still only hit things and still only have one option in combat, and no options outside of combat (as compared to previous editions).

This has not been my experience. But I'm open to understanding and admitting I'm wrong with evidence.

Are there any classes that lack narrative power? Classes that are unable to contribute outside of combat (that is, mechanical options, and not just the role-playing skill of the player)?

What if you look beyond the class and consider the whole character? Is there a character that can be built that lacks narrative power when you take into consideration race, background, and feats?

[smcmike]

I don’t think any class lacks the tools to drive narrative. The classes that most often seem to fade into the background in my experience are monks and rangers, but that isn’t really a mechanical issue - it’s just that their fluff lends itself to stoicism and aloofness, which are character traits that tend to make forward progress difficult. Obviously they have great tools for a number of out of combat challenges, though.

[Sigreid]

IMO all real narrative power comes from a player making a decision and having the character take action. No powers, class features or spells necessary.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I’d say rogues have a lot of narrative power. Thieves Can’t alone is probably enough but the skills and expertise are great for it.

Aside from that the subclasses a rogue gets always provides something narratively.

As for Fighter... look to his subclass. Champion may not immediately have anything but it does get remarkable athlete. Skills like athletics and all the Dex based ones are good for out of combat situations too. The other subclasses vary tho.

Barbarians may have the least and even then, raging to break something is pretty great.

I will admit that sometimes you have to go it of your way. But that’s why there are feats/races/backgrounds all of which provide some narrative

[Ellisthion]

In my experience, narrative power has nothing to do with the classes or even the characters, but is 100% the players.

Last game I ran, the strongest characters narratively were:

Thief Rogue
Champion Fighter
Nature Cleric


Their abilities influenced how they went about things but never hampered them. If anyone needs power beyond what they have... that's what allies are for. All these characters had multiple NPCs they could (and did) rely on if they needed extra capabilities.

The only character whose narrative as 100% influenced by his class was the Wild Sorcerer, because I took the wild magic and cranked it up to 11. :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

Are there any classes that lack narrative power?

No.

Claiming that classes lack "narratitve power" is generally the last resort of those who want to claim that casters are superior despite the absence of evidence.

So they go for things like "the wizard is superior, they can teleport the group, or fly".

While the casters do have some useful utility and transportation spells that make the adventurers' life easier, it's not narrative power.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So they go for things like "the wizard is superior, they can teleport the group, or fly".

While the casters do have some useful utility and transportation spells that make the adventurers' life easier, it's not narrative power.

To springboard off of this--

my last long-running group had a AT rogue, a monk, a GOO warlock, and a land druid. The only one with transport spells (or very much in the way of utility spells) was the druid. He was overall the least impactful from a narrative point of view. The only time he even used planeshift was to get them home from the Earth Elemental plane after an unfortunate accident occurred.

The warlock led the pack because he had a driving character (both in character and out of character). The rogue was his foil for a lot of stunts and shaped things as well. The monk and druid were the "saner heads" that kept the group from going off the rails. Both acted as the moral compasses (in different ways).

It was a very OOC-heavy group--they'd discuss things and come to consensus decisions a lot. In game the warlock and the rogue took point on pushing events but everyone was on-board.

In the afterstory, the monk wandered around being a do-gooder, the druid retired to a grove (leading a druid circle), and the rogue became the head of an international drug smuggling ring and a major political figure. The warlock? He voluntarily left the universe to travel through the Far Realms with his patron (long story involving tentacles).

[MaxWilson]

I've seen quite a few people claim that martial classes still lack narrative power and are rather useless. Fighters and rogues can still only hit things and still only have one option in combat, and no options outside of combat (as compared to previous editions).

This has not been my experience. But I'm open to understanding and admitting I'm wrong with evidence.

Are there any classes that lack narrative power? Classes that are unable to contribute outside of combat (that is, mechanical options, and not just the role-playing skill of the player)?

What if you look beyond the class and consider the whole character? Is there a character that can be built that lacks narrative power when you take into consideration race, background, and feats?



Well, pretty much all of the 5E classes lack narrative power in this sense I think you're talking about. There aren't many mechanical abilities that are good for anything at all except fighting, and the abilities that do exist, except for wildshape, tend to be fairly weak and short-lasting compared to classic (A)D&D.

Just look at Fly, Teleport, and Polymorph for example. Fly has gone from lasting hours to only ten minutes; Teleport has gone up from 5th to 7th level, gone from infinite range to 500 miles, and lost the Teleport Without Error variant completely. Polymorph Self used to last practically all day and could be used for spying in a way similarly to druidic wildshape--you kept your mind, kept the ability to switch forms during the spell, and the spell lasted long enough that you could feasibly do something like turn into a bird and fly to another city to deliver a message. And you could pick any creature, "from as small as a wren to the size of a hippopotamus," except for incorporeal creatures (although you didn't always get their special abilities). Now in 5E you turn into a beast, specifically, get a bunch of free HP and lose your mind, and the spell lasts for only 1 hour so you'd need to cast it multiple times to travel even moderate distances. Lots of combat power, little narrative power.

There are a handful of things that are still powerful and versatile (e.g. Planar Binding) but they feel almost like oversights in the context of 5E's design.

[B]Edit: got 5E Teleport range mixed up with Project Image range.

[Contrast]

(that is, mechanical options, and not just the role-playing skill of the player)

I agree with Max that this is the bit which changes the answer to the question somewhat.

Any player has narrative power which often has little dependence on what class they're playing. That said in terms of characters and classes most of the spellcasters typically get more options/tricks which an inventive player can leverage into a lot more solutions. The key issue of course is that if its the fighter who comes up with and drives the plan which requires xyz spells... is the wizard one with the most narrative agency or the fighter?


What if you look beyond the class and consider the whole character? Is there a character that can be built that lacks narrative power when you take into consideration race, background, and feats?

This on the other hand is simple to do. Make a character who follows the choices of another player for whatever reason (loyalty, stupidity, etc). Always follow their lead and interact with everyone else as little as you can for whatever reason (mute, shyness, etc). Ta da. Or you could just make the typical loner character who doesn't interact with the party (though I would typically suggest to someone who makes this character that they've made a lovely NPC).

[MarkVIIIMarc]

If this is about having the power to drive the story, that is going to be DM dependent. Last session my Bard stopped the bad guy with Phantasmal Force. It was the perfect situation for it.

Now the DM has to do a few things to limit magic users. Stretch out that adventuring day long enough and watch the fighter shine for example!

5e is great though. Every couple levels the martial classes get a chance to dip into some magic through a feat. They don't even have to multi-class.


If this is about Fighters just following around the Bard's and Rogues of the world then sometimes that does happen. Players who want their characters to be the face of the party.....well, play those characters. The guy who wants to be the brooding, quiet Rogue or Ranger is going to have to speak up if he wants to follow up on a quest. Its just the way it is. Again, its also the responsibility of me when I'm DMing to ask all the players what they want to do.

[sophontteks]

I think a lot of the narrative power comes from the backgrounds, which makes a fighter no weaker then any other class in this regard.

If a fighter was really worried about his narrative impact he could just take the knight background. Having three loyal retainers really helps cover your otherwise barren skill tree. I had a paladin with a cook, a guide (who carried messages with a trained hawk), and a stablehand. They were great fun to roleplay and they had great potential to drive the story outside of combat.

There are other backgrounds which carry similiar impacts as well. Outriders are practically rangers on their own, for example. If a player works on their background and ties it into the campaign well, they could have many powers their class normally wouldn't have access to.

[Unoriginal]

is the wizard one with the most narrative agency or the fighter?

Neither, really. Your example isn't about narrative agency (or narrative power), it's about problem-solving capacities.


A lot of people seem to equate the two, I don't know why.

[Nifft]

Backgrounds seem to have more narrative power than most classes, so it seems like every character will have narrative power regardless of class.

Every character will have a background, and for narrative power the PC's background will overwhelm a weak class.

[ImproperJustice]

Apologies if this has already been stated but when I read the topic title my first thought was:

There are no classes which lack narrative power, only players.....

Abilities are irrelevant to driving a story. The Player’s choices and characterization is going to be what moves any story forward in an interesting direction. That’s what’s great about role playing.
Usually you will have a while team of players working with a GM to forge a story everyone will remember for ages....

[Foxhound438]

What if you look beyond the class and consider the whole character? Is there a character that can be built that lacks narrative power when you take into consideration race, background, and feats?

I feel this can certainly happen, but it would more be an issue with building a character unfit for a campaign than any particular build. I.E., the inquisitive rogue has a lot of flavor and opportunity for narrative power, but in a game that's focused on driving a crusade into the heart of an enemy nation, that may end up taking back seat to a paladin, cleric, or even more interestingly a fiend warlock who's driving a crusade for their own benefits in the name of some god they don't even care about. And all of those are completely off of backstory/roleplay, not anything about class mechanics.


IMO all real narrative power comes from a player making a decision and having the character take action. No powers, class features or spells necessary.

Arguably, and certainly true in a lot of cases (as the above example), but sometimes you really need a tool to make the thing you want to do work. For example, casting zone of truth to find a traitor is probably a lot more effective than blindly guessing if your insight roll was really high enough to discern the truth. Not only that, but with zone of truth you would probably have more success convincing someone else that you know something's up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Arguably, and certainly true in a lot of cases (as the above example), but sometimes you really need a tool to make the thing you want to do work. For example, casting zone of truth to find a traitor is probably a lot more effective than blindly guessing if your insight roll was really high enough to discern the truth. Not only that, but with zone of truth you would probably have more success convincing someone else that you know something's up.

Zone of truth has lots of features that make it good for confirming evidence but not so good for finding that evidence in the first place. Long cast time, obvious effect, ease of evasion (it doesn't compel you to talk and can be weasel-worded around), fixed location, etc.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I agree with Max that this is the bit which changes the answer to the question somewhat.
Agreed. "Narrative power" is a pretty vague category; the question actually seems to be about "noncombat tools.". What classes have problem-solving tools beyond "2 skill proficiencies, a good ability score, and an imagination?"

The Rogue has plenty of noncombat tools. They get extra skills, they get Expertise, and most subclasses only add to that-- the Assasin gets more proficiencies, the Arcane Trickster gets spells, etc.

The Fighter does not get much in the way of noncombat tools. An extra ASI or two that could potentially be used for such things, and some crappy subclass ribbons like Remarkable Athlete that don't come online until late anyway.

For my money, incidentally, the most noncombat-lacking are probably non-Totem Barbarians. (Ancestral Guardian isn't as bad as the rest, but it's still rough). The base class gives nothing that isn't combat-oriented, and most of the subclasses don't even offer a ribbon like Remarkable Athlete or Study Your Enemy. Barbarians also have a harder time than Fighters investing in a secondary ability (since they need Str for attacks and at least a bit of Dex for medium armor/unarmed defense, while a Figurer can focus on only one) and don't get extra ASI's.

[Telok]

Players drive the narrative, classes provide tools to do so. The question could be more like "If the player is helping to drive the narrative forwards, does the class have tools that aid or hinder that?" The answer will depend on the type and style of your game.

[Sigreid]

Based on what I have read over the years on this forum I do think there are a significant number of DMs/tables that need to be more willing to let skills and tools proficiencies work.

[CantigThimble]

Choice of class plays an utterly insignificant role in determining how much players drive the narrative. 95% of it comes down to the player and MAYBE the last 5% is decided by the character's abilities.

I would even go so far as to say that having lots of class options (spells, abilities etc.) often times REDUCES the impact that a player has on the narrative. People tend to become overly focused on their list of options and react to each new challenge by going down the list, seeing if any spell or ability applies and then shrugging if they don't see one that directly applies. Meanwhile, people with few or no pre-defined options immediately have to jump to creative solutions that aren't dependent on their abilites. Very often those solutions will be more interesting and effective than casting a particular spell.

You can make all kinds of arguments in theory about how two equally creative players could do more or less with one class than another, but I have NEVER seen that play out in practice to any significant extent.

In my experience, the guy who drives the story with a wizard will drive the story just as well with a fighter because they're the one most engaged with it. And no matter how many abilities an unengaged player has they'll never overshadow that person in driving the story.

Narrative power just doesn't work like DPR in any way at all. You can't make a character build that's 'the best' at it. It all comes down to how you play at the table.

[Protato]

Any character can drive stories, really. A game I was in, for example, had a Tempest Cleric that didn't do much outside of hitting people with spells, some utility, and using his magic flail. In other games he's been similar, not having many traits outside of "hitting things and being an elf/half-elf". Meanwhile, a melee character I ran murdered his brother because his brother was possessed by an evil god and was revealed to be working for an ambiguously-good group that seeks to rid the world of Tharizdun's influence. It's all in how the character is played. In terms of out-of-combat utility, casters are good, yes, but a martial can climb a wall, saving a spell slot that could have been used to fly. Why Reduce the door when it can broken apart with a Maul? It's all in what you want to do, what your table lets you get away with, and the luck of the dice (or lack thereof).

[sophontteks]

Even if we are talking about non-combat utility I stand by the power of a good background.

-Using far traveler to gain audiences with otherwise inaccessible people, possibly seeking trade, or even a foreign bodyguard.
-Using your noble background as a means to intimidate the local guard "Do you even know who I am?"
-Selling information to various factions as a criminal spy, calling in favors as needed.
-Securing wholesale trades through your guild.
-A folk hero winning over the people to the point where they strongarm the higher class into granting you favors lest the people revolt. Or potentially using it as a distraction (Jaynestown anyone?)

Skills and tools are great, don't get me wrong, but backgrounds are a real force not to be underestimated.

[Pex]

IMO all real narrative power comes from a player making a decision and having the character take action. No powers, class features or spells necessary.

That and how the DM portrays the NPCs in reaction to the character. If the DM does not have NPCs recognize the great deeds a PC has done, including the bad guys, then the player may feel mediocre. NPCs need to appreciate the great warrior striking down the big bad monster as much as they're amazed by the awesome power of the spellcaster.

In my paladin game I'm the party leader. I did not ask for it. I did not seek it. There was no party vote on it. The party never considered having one. The position was placed upon me by the NPCs with I think DM bias. The DM isn't playing metagame favorites but rather utilizing classic paladin reputation of honesty and integrity. NPCs trust my word implicitly, so they will always defer to me when addressing the party as a whole. I am a Devotion Paladin. One time we met a new NPC who wanted a meeting with us. I personally did not like her, but by all means anyone else in the party could talk with her about anything they wanted. However, because I didn't like her she abruptly ended the meeting.

[GlenSmash!]

The Fighter does not get much in the way of noncombat tools. An extra ASI or two that could potentially be used for such things, and some crappy subclass ribbons like Remarkable Athlete that don't come online until late anyway.

This is why i lament the demise of the UA Scout Fighter. Not only did it get extra skill proficiencies, but could also add to certain skill checks with half a Superiority die roll.

I'm still hoping that idea comes back in another Fighter subclass.

[Contrast]

Neither, really. Your example isn't about narrative agency (or narrative power), it's about problem-solving capacities.


A lot of people seem to equate the two, I don't know why.

Because if one character is standing around twiddling their thumbs and not saying anything while the other player is doing things and progressing the game, one of those people is having a lot more influence over the direction of the game than the other?

I don't see what other narrative agency is available to players in the game other than 'decide what and how me and the party do things' as everything else is the purview of the DM. This is also presumably what OP meant as otherwise no classes have abilities which impart narrative agency/power.

The point I was making was that the person with the tools isn't necessarily the one who is actually driving forward that progress. Its meaningless to say that the wizards have more options if the player of the wizard is prone to twiddling their thumbs until told what to do by the fighter. In that case it's the fighter who has the narrative agency because he's the one deciding what happens. If all the spellcasters in the party decide they won't use teleport spells or planeshift, the fighter can't decide he wants to go on an adventure in another plane (or at least not in his base class which was OPs question). But if the fighter is the party leader and speaks to the party, someone probably will have picked up those spells and the party will go on an adventure in another plane as a result of the fighters decision. So while the spellcasters nominally have more sway, in reality it depends entirely on the players controlling them.

[Unoriginal]

Because if one character is standing around twiddling their thumbs and not saying anything while the other player is doing things and progressing the game, one of those people is having a lot more influence over the direction of the game than the other?

I don't see what other narrative agency is available to players in the game other than 'decide what and how me and the party do things' as everything else is the purview of the DM.

Narrative agency/power is the capacity to decide where you drive the story. The "how", be it class abilities or the way you solve a problem, is at best deciding which brand of car you're using to do so.



This is also presumably what OP meant as otherwise no classes have abilities which impart narrative agency/power.

Yes, that's it. Classes don't have agency, characters do.



The point I was making was that the person with the tools isn't necessarily the one who is actually driving forward that progress. Its meaningless to say that the wizards have more options if the player of the wizard is prone to twiddling their thumbs until told what to do by the fighter. In that case it's the fighter who has the narrative agency because he's the one deciding what happens. If all the spellcasters in the party decide they won't use teleport spells or planeshift, the fighter can't decide he wants to go on an adventure in another plane (or at least not in his base class which was OPs question). But if the fighter is the party leader and speaks to the party, someone probably will have picked up those spells and the party will go on an adventure in another plane as a result of the fighters decision. So while the spellcasters nominally have more sway, in reality it depends entirely on the players controlling them.

Indeed. The classes don't matter in this question.

If the party wanted to use their narrative agency to go to the Elemental Plane of Earth, but none of the casters had the right spell, they'd just need to try finding a NPC or a portal to do it. The agency is there, not in what X class can do or not.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Classes that are unable to contribute outside of combat (that is, mechanical options, and not just the role-playing skill of the player)?
We still ignoring this bit? Yes? Cool.

In any case, I'd like to propose an alternate definition to "narrative power:" the ability to drive the narrative in ways that are independent of the GM."

Now, obviously nothing in an RPG is truly GM-independent, but... Let's say the party is trying to find a stolen statue. The Rogue can leverage his criminal contacts from his background... if the GM agrees that they're here. He can ask around at local fences... if the GM agrees that he can find them. He can walk around muttering in thieves' cant and look for people who react... if the GM agrees they do.

Will they agree? Probably; those are all pretty reasonable ideas. But they might not--say the party is new in town, visiting from someplace far away, and he decides that the Rogue isn't familiar with the local underworld.

On the other hand, the Wizard casts Locate Object and spends ten minutes riding up and down the town. If there's a statue of the right type within a thousand feet, she knows about it. There's no need for negotiation, no room for interpretation--if the thing is there, and isn't behind lead, the spell just works.

Can the GM stop this? Of course; they can declare that there's lead in the way, or that the description is too general, or "it's behind antimagic, screw you," but there's a key difference here-- now it's the player who has dictated the terms of action, and the GM who must work within them.

Similarly, a Fighter who wants to travel to a faraway city might leverage his mercenary background to hire on as a caravan guard...if there are caravans going in the right direction at the right time. He can book passage on a ship... if there are ships, and if they're charging a fair price. The Wizard? She just casts Teleport and goes there.

That's narrative power-- the ability to say "I do this" instead of "I try this."

[Sigreid]

We still ignoring this bit? Yes? Cool.

In any case, I'd like to propose an alternate definition to "narrative power:" the ability to drive the narrative in ways that are independent of the GM."

Now, obviously nothing in an RPG is truly GM-independent, but... Let's say the party is trying to find a stolen statue. The Rogue can leverage his criminal contacts from his background... if the GM agrees that they're here. He can ask around at local fences... if the GM agrees that he can find them. He can walk around muttering in thieves' cant and look for people who react... if the GM agrees they do.

Will they agree? Probably; those are all pretty reasonable ideas. But they might not--say the party is new in town, visiting from someplace far away, and he decides that the Rogue isn't familiar with the local underworld.

On the other hand, the Wizard casts Locate Object and spends ten minutes riding up and down the town. If there's a statue of the right type within a thousand feet, she knows about it. There's no need for negotiation, no room for interpretation--if the thing is there, and isn't behind lead, the spell just works.

Can the GM stop this? Of course; they can declare that there's lead in the way, or that the description is too general, or "it's behind antimagic, screw you," but there's a key difference here-- now it's the player who has dictated the terms of action, and the GM who must work within them.

Similarly, a Fighter who wants to travel to a faraway city might leverage his mercenary background to hire on as a caravan guard...if there are caravans going in the right direction at the right time. He can book passage on a ship... if there are ships, and if they're charging a fair price. The Wizard? She just casts Teleport and goes there.

That's narrative power-- the ability to say "I do this" instead of "I try this."

Your wizard description isn't narrative power in my opinion. It is just following the script. Narrative power to me is changing the script.

[KorvinStarmast]

(that is, mechanical options, and not just the role-playing skill of the player)?
Player skill matters. Each of us, as we play, can grow in that skill. Embrace the truth of that; there is both character growth and player growth.
Don't just play your character sheet, play your character. Encourage each other.
As Contrast said:

Any player has narrative power which often has little dependence on what class they're playing.
Yeah, that.

@GlenSmash
Yeah, that would be cool. Scout Fighter UA with a little tweak in a future book.

[sophontteks]

If the player wrote his background well and tied it into the campaign with the help of the DM before the campaign began, he certainly wouldn't be trying anything.Those powers are very real.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's narrative power-- the ability to say "I do this" instead of "I try this."

Well, if the GM lets you. Maybe teleport is banned; the item is protected against scrying. Whatever. I'm not sure a particular class being slightly more resistant to bad GMing is a noteworthy feature. And a GM who designs a situation where a player needs to go from here to there without giving them ways to do that is a bad GM.

I don't see a meaningful difference between "I try to make contact with the criminal underworld / you can't" and "I locate object / you can't".

[Unoriginal]

We still ignoring this bit? Yes? Cool.

In any case, I'd like to propose an alternate definition to "narrative power:" the ability to drive the narrative in ways that are independent of the GM."

There is NO way to drive the narrative in ways that are independent of the GM.


That's narrative power-- the ability to say "I do this" instead of "I try this."

There is nothing narrative about this, though. It's just the game mechanics being used for problem solving.


In fact, I would argue that being able to interract with the Thieves' Guild or use your mercenary job from your backstory to get a ship are actually more example of narrative agency. The *character* is driving the narrative toward an interaction.

The wizard casting those spells, though? It's just bypassing the story.

[MaxWilson]

Well, if the GM lets you. Maybe teleport is banned; the item is protected against scrying. Whatever. I'm not sure a particular class being slightly more resistant to bad GMing is a noteworthy feature. And a GM who designs a situation where a player needs to go from here to there without giving them ways to do that is a bad GM.

I don't see a meaningful difference between "I try to make contact with the criminal underworld / you can't" and "I locate object / you can't".

There's a lot of design space between "player can" and "player needs to." Optional content completely aside (and I am a believer in optional content), even a "required" or expected task can have multiple ways to approach it. If the party monk gets perma-stunned by Intellect Devourers, Teleporting the monk to a temple where the High Priest owes him a favor is one way to solve the problem. Having a cleric on hand who can cast Greater Restoration is another. Invading a drow citadel, capturing the Matron Mother, and forcing her to cast Greater Restoration at knife-point is yet another. Perhaps additional ways are possible due to DM rulings on alchemical interactions and the Arcana skill. The more affordances you have, crudely speaking, the better your odds are of being able to complete the task successfully.

Just the same, I think I'm with you on the similarity between "I try to make contact with the criminal underworld"/"You look in all the right dives, but everyone in this town appears to be honest--if there's an underworld here it's hidden so well you cannot find it" and "I try to locate the object with the Locate Object spell" and "you spend all day roaming all up and down town casting Locate Object in various places, looking for grotesque monkey-idols, but at no point do you get a hit."

I think the real point of interest here is about affordances: ("affordance: the qualities or properties of an object that define its possible uses or make clear how it can or should be used"). Players gravitate towards sections of play where rules are clearly-defined; it's one reason combat is so popular. The more 5E defines rules for what is possible, the more players will gravitate towards those kinds of activities. Xanathar's rules for tool proficiencies are a step in that direction--you can expect more players to try to identify potions with Glassblower's tools now.

It's not entirely about the end result, either. Some of it is about ease at the metagame level and being able to predict outcomes without having to Twenty Questions the DM during the planning process. There's a big difference in ease of play between thinking to yourself, "Okay, I can do XYZ [e.g. wildshape into a bird to steal the stone idol] but then ABC might happen [I might not be able to lift the stone idol] and I'd have to KJL instead [sneak out via Pass Without Trace], so let's MNO instead [sneak in the whole party under Pass Without Trace] so that PZQ [they're all there to help bust me out if Guards notice us anyway despite Pass Without Trace]," vs. having to interrogate the DM at every step of the process. "DM, can I XYZ? [DM responds at length] Could ABC happen? [DM answers, or maybe says try it and find out] Do I have any alternatives like MNO? What are the relative pros and cons? [etc.]"

If you make certain things a hassle, players are less likely to do them and DMs are less likely to indulge them. If you make them easier for the actual human beings sitting around the table, they are more likely to actually happen. Hence my hopes for the Xanathar's tool rules, and hence why I try to make sure players know all my house rules including my rules for alchemy and spell research.

[A Fat Dragon]

“Narrative Power: The power to help smoothly support and forward a given story/narrative with traits and abilities present in your PC’s features, and within the Player’s role playing and problem solving skills.”

I consider that a solid definition.

[Unoriginal]

“Narrative Power: The power to help smoothly support and forward a given story/narrative with traits and abilities present in your PC’s features, and within the Player’s role playing and problem solving skills.”

I consider that a solid definition.

Why do you consider that a solid definition?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

T
I think the real point of interest here is about affordances: ("affordance: the qualities or properties of an object that define its possible uses or make clear how it can or should be used"). Players gravitate towards sections of play where rules are clearly-defined; it's one reason combat is so popular. The more 5E defines rules for what is possible, the more players will gravitate towards those kinds of activities. Xanathar's rules for tool proficiencies are a step in that direction--you can expect more players to try to identify potions with Glassblower's tools now.

This is interesting to me, because I agree - yet when we talk about spellcasting, a lot of the power spells that get identified are ones that don't have clear use cases. Spells like silent image are powerful in large part because they don't have clear, focused rules for specific usage. They're the magical equivalent of asking the DM if you can use glassblower's tools to identify a potion prior to the XGtE publication, in a way.

I also agree with you about the distinction between "player can" and "player needs to". Options are good. My point is specifically that, if the next step of progressing the adventure is the characters physically traveling from A to B, it is the DM's responsibility to make sure they can do that. That could be the PC wizard having access to teleport, or an NPC wizard doing it, or a boat or whatever. And my bias as a DM and worldbuilder is that the most mundane solution ought to be the most common. If A and B are port cities, there should probably be a boat that goes between them.

[Seppo87]

The ability to teleport, put someone into a zone of truth, or divine where an hidden item is, or mind control someone,

is narrative power

anyone claiming it's not is just blind

[MaxWilson]

This is interesting to me, because I agree - yet when we talk about spellcasting, a lot of the power spells that get identified are ones that don't have clear use cases. Spells like silent image are powerful in large part because they don't have clear, focused rules for specific usage. They're the magical equivalent of asking the DM if you can use glassblower's tools to identify a potion prior to the XGtE publication, in a way.

Can you elaborate on how the lack of rules makes spells like Silent Image more powerful, as opposed to just more inconvenient and unreliable-across-DMs? If there were e.g. Morale stats for each monster, and a set of Morale rules in the PHB (e.g. "a monster must make a morale check or flee when outnumbered by 3:1"), and a section in each stat block denoting things that horrify and repel this particular creature... how would that make Major Image/Silent Image/etc. less powerful?

Incidentally, while I approve in principle of the way 5E allows skills to "float" to different attributes (e.g. Intelligence (Stealth) instead of Dexterity to create camouflage), not even knowing for sure what attribute a given skill will be using probably increases player uncertainty when declaring actions relying on skills. Either players wind up declaring actions in gamist jargon ("I want to use Intelligence (Investigate) to look for footprints") or the DM has to make his/her rules very clear in advance ("Tracking footprints outdoors can be done using your choice of Wisdom (Survival) or Intelligence (Investigation), but relying on Investigation reduce your speed by 60% while you are tracking whereas Survival lets you track at full speed") in order to maintain player immersion and proper flow.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The ability to teleport, put someone into a zone of truth, or divine where an hidden item is, or mind control someone,

is narrative power

anyone claiming it's not is just blind

It is only particularly powerful if no other way exists to accomplish those goals. A wizard casting locate object to find the drugs and a barbarian screaming "WHERE ARE THE DRUGS" into the dealer's face until he tells them move the narrative forward equivalently. There should always be another way to get from here to there, discern a lie, find an item or make someone do what you want.

[Seppo87]

It is only particularly powerful if no other way exists to accomplish those goals. A wizard casting locate object to find the drugs and a barbarian screaming "WHERE ARE THE DRUGS" into the dealer's face until he tells them move the narrative forward equivalently. There should always be another way to get from here to there, discern a lie, find an item or make someone do what you want.
Of course you can work the land, grow plants, protect plants from insects, wait a few months while breaking your back every day, then finally reap the plants

OR "create food" from thin air

I feel that the difference is substantial. The mage who materializes food has the same narrative power as one man working for an entire season (!!), with ONE daily slot. And he can do so much many more things with other slots.
That sounds like power to me.

[Unoriginal]

The ability to teleport, put someone into a zone of truth, or divine where an hidden item is, or mind control someone,

is narrative power

No it's not.

Those are problem-solving buttons. They have nothing to do with the narrative.


anyone claiming it's not is just blind

"Anyone who doesn't agree with my arbitrary definition is blind."

[Seppo87]

Those are problem-solving buttons
That is narrative power



"Anyone who doesn't agree with my arbitrary definition is blind."
yes because my definition is correct

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Can you elaborate on how the lack of rules makes spells like Silent Image more powerful, as opposed to just more inconvenient and unreliable-across-DMs? If there were e.g. Morale stats for each monster, and a set of Morale rules in the PHB (e.g. "a monster must make a morale check or flee when outnumbered by 3:1"), and a section in each stat block denoting things that horrify and repel this particular creature... how would that make Major Image/Silent Image/etc. less powerful?


The general argument is that they're only limited by your creativity. In the Enworld Cantrip Review, minor illusion is 4 out of 5 stars. Treantmonk's guide rates it as the best Wizard cantrip:
This should ALWAYS be on your list. If you are not overly creative, let me give you a couple examples that make it worth it all on their own.

The Blast from the Past Wizard guide also rates minor illusion as 5/5:
Great spell with lots of utility particularly if you’re clever in using it.

Because the way it can be used is open-ended, there's a higher ceiling on its usage than a more defined spell like fireball. And, from tables I've been a part of, a lot of the potential downside is mitigated sometimes: "I use silent image to do X." "You can't do that." "Oh. I do something else then." That takes a lot of the risk out of creative uses of it.

Adding specific rules, like morale checks, wouldn't necessarily make it weaker unless they were coupled with narrowing the possible uses of the spell.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Of course you can work the land, grow plants, protect plants from insects, wait a few months while breaking your back every day, then finally reap the plants

OR "create food" from thin air

I feel that the difference is substantial. The mage who materializes food has the same narrative power as one man working for an entire season (!!), with ONE daily slot. And he can do so much many more things with other slots.
That sounds like power to me.

Alternately, a barbarian with the Pirate background goes to the bakery, grabs some bread and walks out. Donesies. That's even less effort expended, and no spell slots involved.

Casting create food doesn't move the story forward. Giving food to the beggar so he'll tell you which house your quarry entered - that moves the story forward. How you get the food doesn't matter.

[Unoriginal]

That is narrative power

No it's not. It has nothing to do with the narrative.


yes because my definition is correct

No it's not. You're equating personal power with narrative power.


It is only particularly powerful if no other way exists to accomplish those goals. A wizard casting locate object to find the drugs and a barbarian screaming "WHERE ARE THE DRUGS" into the dealer's face until he tells them move the narrative forward equivalently. There should always be another way to get from here to there, discern a lie, find an item or make someone do what you want.

No, that's not what "narrative" means.

The narrative continues no matter if the task is succeeded or not. Narrative power is being able to select the path you want among those laid before you, not that there are paths open thanks to game features.

[MaxWilson]

It is only particularly powerful if no other way exists to accomplish those goals. A wizard casting locate object to find the drugs and a barbarian screaming "WHERE ARE THE DRUGS" into the dealer's face until he tells them move the narrative forward equivalently. There should always be another way to get from here to there, discern a lie, find an item or make someone do what you want.

Another form of narrative power is something like the Serendipity ability from GURPS: the ability to player-fiat a minor coincidence, like "I'm walking into my prison cell, when suddenly I stop and stare at the guard. 'Bob?' I say. 'What are you doing working as a prison guard?!' It turns out that the junior guard is my own first cousin!" Then the GM/DM has to respond to that.

D&D doesn't have a strong tradition of supporting that kind of (dissociated) narrative play, probably because of its strong simulationist/first-person roots.

[Seppo87]

Narrative power is being able to select the path you want among those laid before you, not that there are paths open thanks to game features.

Absolutely wrong, the opposite is true. Narrative power is being able to select a path that is open thanks to class features. That is narrative power for you.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The narrative continues no matter if the task is succeeded or not. Narrative power is being able to select the path you want among those laid before you, not that there are paths open thanks to game features.

We are operating from different definitions of narrative power.

[PhoenixPhyre]

D&D doesn't have a strong tradition of supporting that kind of (dissociated) narrative play, probably because of its strong simulationist/first-person roots.

Describing D&D as having "strong simulationist roots" either does violence to history or it does violence to language. Only 3e has made any pretense at being a simulationist game by the common definition (attempting to model a universe). D&D has always been about the game more than anything. The older players can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the early versions, starting as they did from wargames, had very heavy game elements--things that only make sense because it's a game and for "gaming" reasons.

It's true that D&D has stayed away from explicit, mechanically-defined player-side narrative power. But that's because it's been game-focused with a strong DM role, not because it's a simulation in any meaningful sense of the word.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Another form of narrative power is something like the Serendipity ability from GURPS: the ability to player-fiat a minor coincidence, like "I'm walking into my prison cell, when suddenly I stop and stare at the guard. 'Bob?' I say. 'What are you doing working as a prison guard?!' It turns out that the junior guard is my own first cousin!" Then the GM/DM has to respond to that.

D&D doesn't have a strong tradition of supporting that kind of (dissociated) narrative play, probably because of its strong simulationist/first-person roots.

I mean, the Serendipity ability is literally a narrative power.

[Unoriginal]

Of course you can work the land, grow plants, protect plants from insects, wait a few months while breaking your back every day, then finally reap the plants

OR "create food" from thin air

I feel that the difference is substantial. The mage who materializes food has the same narrative power as one man working for an entire season

No. Neither of them have any narrative power. Unless if your campaign is about producing food.


Again, you're equating "can do stuff quickly/quicker than others" with narrative power.

Narrative power has absolutely nothing to do with that.


Narrative power is the capacity to drive the plot. Getting food has almost no bearing on that, aside from being a ressource drain and maybe a sidequest generator.

An example: Demogorgon is an extremely powerful Demon Prince, both on his own, as the ruler of hundreds of demons, and as a corruptive influence on many minions in the Material Plane.

He also has 0 narrative power if the campaign is Storm King's Thunder and there is no one tied to Demogorgon who appears. Because he has no influence on the plot.


We are operating from different definitions of narrative power.

Could you please try to explain what is "narrative" about your definition? Being able to do things isn't "narrative", it's just power.

Sorry for being rude.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Could you please try to explain what is "narrative" about your definition? Being able to do things isn't "narrative", it's just power.

Sorry for being rude.

No worries, and I apologize if I was short.

My conception of D and D is as a form of collaborative storytelling between GM and players. A character's narrative power, by my definition, is the character's ability to advance the story. If there's a plot-critical item in a locked safe, the next step in the story might be to retrieve the item. The barbarian has narrative power - he can bash the safe apart to take the item out. The rogue has narrative power too - he can pick the lock. And the wizard has narrative power - he can open the safe with magic.

Where I part company with some people is what seems to be an unspoken assumption that eventually the safe will be unpickable and unbreakable and no other options exist to open it anywhere in the world, but the wizard can still open it with magic. That to me is bad GMing.

Edit: I said the character's ability to advance the story; that's not what I mean exactly. The player is the one advancing the story, but the character is giving her the tools she's using to do so.

[Sigreid]

We are operating from different definitions of narrative power.

I do not believe there are 2 people in this thread using the same definition of narrative power. As an example, I define it as the ability to change the script (course and possibly focus of the story). Everyone has that with no powers needed, just a will to do so.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I do not believe there are 2 people in this thread using the same definition of narrative power.

Probably true, which is a suggestion that the answer to the OP is no.

[Seppo87]

narrative power is the ability to deviate, affect or complement an existing story based on player's will,
in a relevant, effective and timely manner
using game mechanics

which is what casters can easily do most of the times,
while martials struggle and have a limited scope of effectiveness


----


I want to be clear in order to avoid misunderstandings:

In D&D, "narrative power" is subject to in-game power
If you can't do something in-game, you cannot make happen things according to your will

therefore, *the ability to affect outcomes (in a relevant effective and timely manner) according to player's will IS narrative power*


and please don't move the goalpost. A DM can take away this power but we are not measuring "how much narrative power is left to a wizard after a DM fiated stuff away" we are measuring "how much narrative power is granted by classes" by default

[Unoriginal]

Looks like an attempt to re-frame the debate caster-vs-martial to "prove" that casters are superior since the equivalence is demonstrable everywhere else, IMO.

But eh, it's pointless to discuss this topic if we can't even agree on what we're talking about.

[CantigThimble]

It seems very difficult to disambiguate what narrative power is and define it in a way that more than one person agrees with at a time.

However, I think that everyone who plays D&D has experienced narrative power. After every story arc in a campaign with any amount of RP in it you can look back and say: "THAT player exercised the most narrative power." And I bet that for most of those groups, a majority would be able to agree on which player it was who exercised the most narrative power. So there's some kind of principle there. The question is, how can we refer to or define that for the purposes of this discussion?

I think that the problem here is the process of disambiguation itself. We can propose any number of definitions and then hypotheticals within those definitions where X option doesn't work and Y option will to justify why some classes have more narrative power than others. However, none of those hypotheticals exist within the context of an actual game. I think an evidential approach would be more productive here.

Look at the games you've actually played in. Who had the most narrative power in different times in the campaign? Is there a pattern in the classes of the characters who had the most narrative power?

When I apply this style of analysis myself, I see a pattern that is not at all correlated with class. (Cleric, Fighter, Bard, Rogue, Ranger) but is correlated with player. Very often players exercise a similar amount of narrative power regardless of what class they are playing. Some players solve the narrative challenges very often, regardless of class and others typically fail to solve the narrative challenges , again, regardless of class.

I think this method makes more sense than defining narrative power out-of-context as "# of options on character sheet" because my experiences are not accurately predicted by that idea of narrative power.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It seems very difficult to disambiguate what narrative power is and define it in a way that more than one person agrees with at a time.

However, I think that everyone who plays D&D has experienced narrative power. After every story arc in a campaign with any amount of RP in it you can look back and say: "THAT player exercised the most narrative power." And I bet that for most of those groups, a majority would be able to agree on which player it was who exercised the most narrative power. So there's some kind of principle there. The question is, how can we refer to or define that for the purposes of this discussion?

I think that the problem here is the process of disambiguation itself. We can propose any number of definitions and then hypotheticals within those definitions where X option doesn't work and Y option will to justify why some classes have more narrative power than others. However, none of those hypotheticals exist within the context of an actual game. I think an evidential approach would be more productive here.

Look at the games you've actually played in. Who had the most narrative power in different times in the campaign? Is there a pattern in the classes of the characters who had the most narrative power?

When I apply this style of analysis myself, I see a pattern that is not at all correlated with class. (Cleric, Fighter, Bard, Rogue, Ranger) but is correlated with player. Very often players exercise a similar amount of narrative power regardless of what class they are playing. Some players solve the narrative challenges very often, regardless of class and others typically fail to solve the narrative challenges , again, regardless of class.

I think this method makes more sense than defining narrative power out-of-context as "# of options on character sheet" because my experiences are not accurately predicted by that idea of narrative power.

I totally agree. I've been DM for quite a few parties. Basically none had any correlation between mechanical power and narrative power. Either the observed narrative power was shared (consensus style--everyone agrees on how things change and why, on goals and their resolution mechanics) or it bounced around between the players who cared the most at that point, mechanical power be hanged. One of those campaigns went all the way to 20.

The focus on mechanical power seems to stem from players who've been burned by DMs that won't let them do anything unless they have a mechanical ticket--some "I can do <thing>" power. That or have an adversarial relationship with the party or the DM--wanting to force the game to bend to their will no matter what the other players or the DM wants. Neither of those is a healthy way to play.

DMs should work with players (even OOC if needed!) to find ways to let them all influence the narrative. If you're shutting down the "rogue talks to the thieves' guild" approach, it better have been well established that the thieves' guild either doesn't exist or won't get involved for <good reason>.

Mechanics are tools for resolving interactions. They're not "I win" buttons and they're not "you have to do what I say" buttons. If a particular action doesn't make sense, no amount of "it's magic" will make it work. The rules are tools, not masters.

[Angelalex242]

In my game, I've found narrative power is mostly based on alignment.

(Rise of Tiamat)

If you're talking to metallic dragons, the paladin talks, the less good people shut up.

If you're talking to Thay, the paladin shuts up, and the rogue and warlock talk.

[Deathtongue]

The focus on mechanical power seems to stem from players who've been burned by DMs that won't let them do anything unless they have a mechanical ticket--some "I can do <thing>" power. This is an eminently reasonable fear, especially if you play in larger groups. I don't know why you're just dismissing it.

Neither the DM nor the Players simply do not have the time to explain to the DM how they can do A, B, and C to achieve Z. Even beyond the fact that two people can have a good-faith reason to disagree on what's reasonable. I was doing a Tales of the Yawning Portal adventure not too long ago. I had an INT 20 wizard interacting with a trap that involved copper plates and magnetic fields. The DM ruled that my pre-industrial wizard, despite being a top-tier certified genius, didn't know enough about magnetic fields to even have the idea of rerouting the field with other conductors. Which one of us was right? And if you think the DM was right, why can't you see the value of having a mechanical ticket that 'just works'?

Or if that's too abstract, why don't you ask about the experiences of people who regularly play with illusions? Some DMs have the NPCs turn into logic ninjas, some start introducing third factors why the illusion doesn't work, some just flat out say the illusion doesn't work. Even if the DM is willing to open the floor to discussion (and a LOT OF THEM DON'T, and oftentimes for good reasons) that's still inconvenient to regularly have to argue with the DM why your attempt to exercise narrative power should pass muster.

[MaxWilson]

Describing D&D as having "strong simulationist roots" either does violence to history or it does violence to language. Only 3e has made any pretense at being a simulationist game by the common definition (attempting to model a universe).

Glaive-guisarme.

[Deathtongue]

I do not believe there are 2 people in this thread using the same definition of narrative power. As an example, I define it as the ability to change the script (course and possibly focus of the story). Everyone has that with no powers needed, just a will to do so.I think it's pretty obvious that Iron Man has more of an ability to change the script than War Machine despite very similar abilities in combat. Almost anything War Machine can do to change the script Iron Man can do. And Iron Man can do major, MAJOR things to change the script that War Machine can't.

[Angelalex242]

I think it's pretty obvious that Iron Man has more of an ability to change the script than War Machine despite very similar abilities in combat. Almost anything War Machine can do to change the script Iron Man can do. And Iron Man can do major, MAJOR things to change the script that War Machine can't.

Well, in Marvel, the 3 script changing Avengers are Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor. (Dr. Strange also counts if he ever joins the team. Scarlet Witch will count if she gets her full comic powers.)

[Deathtongue]

Well, in Marvel, the 3 script changing Avengers are Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor. (Dr. Strange also counts if he ever joins the team. Scarlet Witch will count if she gets her full comic powers.)It's not always obvious which character can change the script more than another. Iron Man is a better inventor than Batman, but Batman is a better detective.

But there are occasions where comparisons are pretty easy. Like with War Machine and Iron Man. And, unfortunately, the fighter almost always comes out on War Machine outside of the narrow focus on combat. And not even compared to the wizard, I mean compared to the bard or paladin.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It's not always obvious which character can change the script more than another. Iron Man is a better inventor than Batman, but Batman is a better detective.

But there are occasions where comparisons are pretty easy. Like with War Machine and Iron Man. And, unfortunately, the fighter almost always comes out on War Machine outside of the narrow focus on combat. And not even compared to the wizard, I mean compared to the bard or paladin.

This analogy to Marvel doesn't help clarify matters. War Machine doesn't have narrative power because he's a 3.5 cohort, not a PC.

[Willie the Duck]

Describing D&D as having "strong simulationist roots" either does violence to history or it does violence to language. Only 3e has made any pretense at being a simulationist game by the common definition (attempting to model a universe). D&D has always been about the game more than anything. The older players can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the early versions, starting as they did from wargames, had very heavy game elements--things that only make sense because it's a game and for "gaming" reasons.

You asked for those of us who have played the older editions to correct you after you declared that you were so sure you were right that disagreement was violence to history or language? I can't tell if that's being overly assured of your correctness, or some variation of 'better to beg forgiveness than permission.'

Regardless, no. D&D has always tried to have it both ways. Original D&D had all sorts of clearly gamist tropes and devices, either in the rules or in the general assumptions of the rules. Case in point--in the early days, there was no assumption that using player knowledge that your character didn't have (let's say the player had already been through this dungeon, even if no character in the party had, it was fine to use the secret passage the player knew about). Why? Because it was a game, and the character was in some ways was just your game piece on an infinitely variable board. In contrast, though, there were the huge list of simulationist rules such as massive charts comparing using each weapon to each armor (with and without shield) for relative advantage with an attempt to emulate who had the upper hand, or the rules for the breaking of oars when two ships side-swipe each other. I guess that could be called semi-gamist too, but if so, what in 3e is more simulationist?

[Sigreid]

I think it's pretty obvious that Iron Man has more of an ability to change the script than War Machine despite very similar abilities in combat. Almost anything War Machine can do to change the script Iron Man can do. And Iron Man can do major, MAJOR things to change the script that War Machine can't.

Iron Man has more narrative power because he acts on his own while War Machine is a soldier following orders. Captain America is a pretty classic fighter with narrative power because of he has a strong sense of right and wrong that drives him to act outside any other duty. It's personality, not power.

[Unoriginal]

To put it simply: in "Lord of the Rings", the one with the most narrative power is Frodo.

[Seppo87]

To put it simply: in "Lord of the Rings", the one with the most narrative power is Frodo.
No, it's Galadriel

Frodo is very, very low on the scale of narrative power.

He only has the most narrative power for a brief moment, when pondering wether throwing or keeping the ring in mt fate;
the power of destroying the ring is the power he wields,
an unwieldy power that he barely controls (he in fact doesn't) and doesn't come from him, but from circumstances

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

To put it simply: in "Lord of the Rings", the one with the most narrative power is Frodo.

That is an interesting idea and I'm going to spend some time thinking about it. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm also not sure I disagree. (it's definitely not galadriel lolol)

I'm also not sure if bringing other things - LotR, Marvel, whatever - into this thread actually clarifies anything about narrative power, what it is and who has it. Seems to me that it just muddies the waters a bit.

[Deathtongue]

This analogy to Marvel doesn't help clarify matters. War Machine doesn't have narrative power because he's a 3.5 cohort, not a PC.War Machine had his own comic, so this comparison doesn't hold. But even within the comic where he was the protagonist, he had less agency, and thus narrative power, than Iron Man in his own respective comic because he doesn't have Iron Man's wealth nor genius nor armament.

[Sigreid]

War Machine had his own comic, so this comparison doesn't hold. But even within the comic where he was the protagonist, he had less agency, and thus narrative power, than Iron Man in his own respective comic because he doesn't have Iron Man's wealth nor genius nor armament.

Weird, what you quoted wasn't from me.

[Deathtongue]

To me, narrative power, especially in the context of a TTRPG, only means a character's current ability to affect the plot without breaking internal consistency (i.e. why is Conan in Act 3 suddenly shooting eye lasers) or introducing heretofore unseen story elements (oh, look, Conan found a genie and he can now shoot eye lasers).

The alternate definition which only judges narrative power by effect, rather than potential, is to me meaningless. Because it means that a level 20 fighter has as much narrative power as a level 3 fighter.

[Seppo87]

it's definitely not galadriel lolol

Suppose that at some point when they meet Frodo and Galadriel disagree completely on something, and decide to go against each other, using everything in their power, to impose their will.
Who gets what they want?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

War Machine had his own comic, so this comparison doesn't hold. But even within the comic where he was the protagonist, he had less agency, and thus narrative power, than Iron Man in his own respective comic because he doesn't have Iron Man's wealth nor genius nor armament.

Again, it doesn't help clarify any of the terms, so I'm not sure it's productive to continue along this path. Within the MCU, he's definitely an NPC.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Suppose that at some point when they meet Frodo and Galadriel disagree completely on something, and decide to go against each other, using everything in their power, to impose their will.
Who gets what they want?

Tolkien does, because he's playing all the characters.

[Deathtongue]

Tolkien does, because he's playing all the characters.So let's extend this hypothetical: imagine Tolkein wanted Frodo to win this conflict, but he could only use common sense solutions a mundane character could use or abilities Frodo has shown to have used in the past. What are his options without making Galadriel lose her abilities, change her mind, introduce third-party intervention, or giving Frodo heretofore unseen additional powers?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To me, narrative power, especially in the context of a TTRPG, only means a character's current ability to affect the plot without breaking internal consistency (i.e. why is Conan in Act 3 suddenly shooting eye lasers) or introducing heretofore unseen story elements (oh, look, Conan found a genie and he can now shoot eye lasers).

The alternate definition which only judges narrative power by effect, rather than potential, is to me meaningless. Because it means that a level 20 fighter has as much narrative power as a level 3 fighter.

But in that case (and more generally), no class has any narrative power. Because there's only one person at the table with any mechanical narrative power. The DM. The basic setup is that nothing happens until/unless the DM narrates it to be so.

Printed rules make very flimsy weapons/shields. A DM who chooses to railroad can just as easily railroad against a spell as against a background feature or a class feature. Because the rules don't bind the DM. The rules serve the game, they don't dictate the game. And no amount of rule citations can make it so. All it does is make you look petulant and unwilling to use your words and come to a consensus with others. Not exactly good play.

Let's consider a concrete case. The task at hand--retrieve an item thought to be somewhere in town, probably in the hands of someone wealthy (due to its value).


* Fighter, background Noble.
* Rogue, background Criminal.
* Cleric, background Acolyte.
* Wizard, background Sage.

All level 5 or below.


How could the party go about this task? Each player has some mechanical aids:

* The fighter can ask around the local elite, looking for information. His background gives him access to audiences with nobles.
* The rogue can ask the local criminal population for aid (background feature + thieves cant). He may or may not have to pay (in coin or in tit-for-tat work), but they can probably provide significant information.
* The cleric can turn to his church or to his god (can cast augury or locate object*). His background and non-spell mechanical traits don't give him much.
* The wizard has two options: locate object (if and only if he actually learned that spell) or research (using the Sage feature). This will tell him where to look to find the information, but specifically might require a quest to gain that knowledge.

* Note about locate object: To find a particular object, locate object requires you to have seen it up close (within 30 feet) at least once. Avoiding this by being super specific about your description is hardly kosher play in my book and should be denied (just like trying to weasel-word a wish). If you're looking for an ugly statue, it will find the nearest ugly statue. If you're looking for a ring, it will find the nearest ring. So unless the item you're looking for is really super unique and/or you've seen it before, it's not that useful. It can also be blocked by any thickness of lead--it's reasonable for a rich person to put valuables behind lead if magical location detection is a known thing in the setting.

Note that none of the options really give much guarantee of finding things. All can be blocked with about the same ease by the DM if they really want to railroad you. Even going to higher level doesn't give you much--divinations are much weaker in 5e than in past editions.

Same goes for most other scenarios. Narrative power comes more from the player (and the interplay between the player and the DM) than it does from the character.

[Unoriginal]

Suppose that at some point when they meet Frodo and Galadriel disagree completely on something, and decide to go against each other, using everything in their power, to impose their will.
Who gets what they want?

Suppose at some point Frodo and Boromir disagree completely on something, and decide to go against each other, using everything in their power, to impose their will.

Who gets what they want?

Obviously, since Boromir is far stronger and more skilled than Frodo, is a great tactician, and is used to tracking down enemies, the Gondorean has much more power than a Hobbit with no real combat or stealth training, with 0 tactical training, and no notable skill. And this hold true even if the Hobbit turns invisible.

So obviously Boromir would get his way and impose his will on Frodo...

Oh, wait. That's not what happened, because personal power isn't narrative power.


In the case of Galadriel, she has less narratives power than Frodo, explicitly so, because she CANNOT get involved in the plot too much. Acting directly would allow Sauron to swallow her realm and her people, and grabbing the One Ring for herself would only end up in disaster.

And so her role is limited to give the group some useful items and advice, with a bit of exposition.

[Seppo87]

But in that case (and more generally), no class has any narrative power. Because there's only one person at the table with any mechanical narrative power. The DM. The basic setup is that nothing happens until/unless the DM narrates it to be so.

I already answered this:
DM can take away this power but we are not measuring "how much narrative power is left to a wizard after a DM fiated stuff away" we are measuring "how much narrative power is granted by classes" by default

----


personal power isn't narrative power
Narrative power is the ability to make things happen according to one's will.

Personal power is not necessarily the only way to get there, but is often the best and most reliable.

In the context of classes, we can (and should) measure "how many effective tools does this class give"
and the answer is different for each class.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So let's extend this hypothetical: imagine Tolkein wanted Frodo to win this conflict, but he could only use common sense solutions a mundane character could use or abilities Frodo has shown to have used in the past. What are his options without making Galadriel lose her abilities, change her mind, introduce third-party intervention, or giving Frodo heretofore unseen additional powers?

Well, Frodo does possess arguably the most powerful artifact in the game world.

[Sigreid]

Well, Frodo does possess arguably the most powerful artifact in the game world.

And the loyalty of the majority.

[Unoriginal]

So let's extend this hypothetical: imagine Tolkein wanted Frodo to win this conflict, but he could only use common sense solutions a mundane character could use or abilities Frodo has shown to have used in the past. What are his options without making Galadriel lose her abilities, change her mind, introduce third-party intervention, or giving Frodo heretofore unseen additional powers?

Frodo put on the One Ring. Sauron immediatly becomes aware of the Ring being in Lorien, dissipating all the power Galadriel used to hide her people from the Dark Lord. Sauron sends his armies to burn down the Elves' town.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I already answered this:


But that's exactly it--you're talking about potential power, but actual power is more important. And actual power is only weakly correlated in actual play to potential power, both in my experience and in the experience of many others. You can measure whatever you want, but it's rather irrelevant for anything that matters beyond "yay casters/boo martials" (which is done to death, and relies on strained comparisons like this one). You're confusing a proxy (number of class options) with the actual thing (effect on the game).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Frodo put on the One Ring. Sauron immediatly becomes aware of the Ring being in Lorien, dissipating all the power Galadriel used to hide her people from the Dark Lord. Sauron sends his armies to burn down the Elves' town.

he could also just stab her. that seemed to work for grima.

[Seppo87]

Frodo put on the One Ring. Sauron immediatly becomes aware of the Ring being in Lorien, dissipating all the power Galadriel used to hide her people from the Dark Lord. Sauron sends his armies to burn down the Elves' town.

Ooooh yeah, Gm fiated away Galadriel's power.
You are measuring the wrong thing.

[Unoriginal]

Well, Frodo does possess arguably the most powerful artifact in the game world.

He doesn't possess it, he just carries it. The only power Frodo could use at this point was the invisibility thing.

[Seppo87]

You're confusing a proxy (number of class options) with the actual thing (effect on the game).
If there is no difference between having only one potential way of doing things and having many effective ways of making things happen, you might as well play a rock with no personal agenda, and I mean a literal rock, like, made of stone, and let the "plot" progress itself with no intervention.

In my experience, what you say is only true in the most strict of railroads

[Deathtongue]

But in that case (and more generally), no class has any narrative power. Because there's only one person at the table with any mechanical narrative power. The DM. The basic setup is that nothing happens until/unless the DM narrates it to be so.Even if we accept this premise, it's only an ivory tower hypothetical. It doesn't say anything about what actually goes on in games and what steps D&D should take to fix it.

Take the setup of 'an attentive guard is patrolling a brightly lit, near-featureless hall'. Two characters want to get past the guard. One of them is a super-sneaky mundane rogue with a +15 to stealth. The other is a wizard with a mere +2 or +3 to stealth, but he has the invisibility spell.

I can tell you right now that there are DMs who would declare that the rogue autofails, even if they were able to juice their check to +30. And there are very few DMs that wouldn't give the wizard at least a chance to succeed. That is a clear imbalance of narrative power and one that happens in a lot of home games, enough that people complain bitterly about nerfing martials.

All that, and we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about or even use it as an anecdote for narrative power because any DM can always declare the invisible wizard auto-fails and the sneaky rogue has a chance of winning?

[Unoriginal]

Ooooh yeah, Gm fiated away Galadriel's power.
You are measuring the wrong thing.

That's not GM fiat, it's been established that it's what happens when someone put on the One Ring.

Galadriel don't have the at-will power to prevent people from putting a ring on their finger.

I find it funny you say that I'm measuring the wrong thing, when by your reasoning Galadriel is the one who should have done the most for the narrative.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

He doesn't possess it, he just carries it. The only power Frodo could use at this point was the invisibility thing.

As you pointed out yourself, merely putting it on represents a major threat to Galadriel.

Still maintain that this is a dumb discussion. Books and movies aren't roleplaying games. Tolkien is the author of the book. If he wants there to be a solution, that solution will exist, no matter how contrived or absurd it needs to be. Examining narrative power through the lens of a single tyrannical storyteller doesn't give us any useful information to apply to a collaborative environment with multiple narrators.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Even if we accept this premise, it's only an ivory tower hypothetical. It doesn't say anything about what actually goes on in games and what steps D&D should take to fix it.

Take the setup of 'an attentive guard is patrolling a brightly lit, near-featureless hall'. Two characters want to get past the guard. One of them is a super-sneaky mundane rogue with a +15 to stealth. The other is a wizard with a mere +2 or +3 to stealth, but he has the invisibility spell.

I can tell you right now that there are DMs who would declare that the rogue autofails, even if they were able to juice their check to +30. And there are very few DMs that wouldn't give the wizard at least a chance to succeed. That is a clear imbalance of narrative power and one that happens in a lot of home games, enough that people complain bitterly about nerfing martials.

All that, and we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about or even use it as an anecdote for narrative power because any DM can always declare the invisible wizard auto-fails and the sneaky rogue has a chance of winning?

Why do we want to get past the guard, and what other options exist for doing so? Can't the rogue just walk out and shoot the guards? Maybe our rogue is ScarJo and she can seduce them into momentary distraction, or use Deception to dismiss them from their duty.

What you're describing - a scenario with one possible solution under conditions where everything other than the magical solution fails - is just bad GMing.

[Seppo87]

there are basically 2 stances on this subject:

1) the rational one
narrative power in a game is defined as the sum of effective potential tools the class offers in order to make things happen according to player's will

2) the wrong one
narrative power granted by class is null because GM negates it so who cares, players aren't allowed to decide anything and therefore classes are all the same, you might as well play a rock, lol railroad

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

there are basically 2 stances on this subject:

1) the rational one
narrative power in a game is defined as the sum of effective potential tools the class offers in order to make things happen according to player's will

2) the wrong one
narrative power granted by class is null because GM negates it so who cares, classes are all the same because railroad lol

What a brilliant, insightful and clearminded post!

[Seppo87]

What a brilliant, insightful and clearminded post!
Thank you sir. Prove me wrong now.
I'm sure you have good arguments, not just sarcasm

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Thank you sir. Prove me wrong now.
I'm sure you have good arguments, not just sarcasm

You're more than welcome to read back for my thoughts on this subject, and I'd be happy to provide further insight if you have a particular point where you need clarification.

[Seppo87]

I'm claiming that the assumption that players cannot decide stuff is against the notion of rpg itself

players can decide stuff according to their character sheet. that is the whole point of having a character sheet: to define the boundaries of what your character can or cannot achieve.
A gm that negates it, is doing their job wrong, and therefore is irrelevant

[Deathtongue]

Why do we want to get past the guard, and what other options exist for doing so? Can't the rogue just walk out and shoot the guards? Maybe our rogue is ScarJo and she can seduce them into momentary distraction, or use Deception to dismiss them from their duty.But all of those options are available to the wizard (and bard, and paladin, and cleric, and etc.), too. A bard has every option you described the rogue as having has plus a few others.


What you're describing - a scenario with one possible solution under conditions where everything other than the magical solution fails - is just bad GMing.So why is the DM ruling out the nonmagical sneaking solution NOT bad GMing? And if it is bad GMing and GMs should 'not' do this, why do so many GMs do this and similar on-the-spot nerfs?

[Unoriginal]

Take the setup of 'an attentive guard is patrolling a brightly lit, near-featureless hall'. Two characters want to get past the guard. One of them is a super-sneaky mundane rogue with a +15 to stealth. The other is a wizard with a mere +2 or +3 to stealth, but he has the invisibility spell.

I can tell you right now that there are DMs who would declare that the rogue autofails, even if they were able to juice their check to +30. And there are very few DMs that wouldn't give the wizard at least a chance to succeed. That is a clear imbalance of narrative power and one that happens in a lot of home games, enough that people complain bitterly about nerfing martials.

All that, and we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about or even use it as an anecdote for narrative power because any DM can always declare the invisible wizard auto-fails and the sneaky rogue has a chance of winning?

By the actual rules of the game, a Rogue with that high a modifier would accomplish that automatically if they can avoid the guard looking at them directly (so stay behind the guard as they do their back-and-forth patroling, while the Wizard would have ~50% chances to succeed after using up their spell. If the guard is a standard Guard NPC.

The DM going "Actually, you need magic to succeed this because Martials are just sidekicks" is not part of the game nor the classes.

[Willie the Duck]

Even if we accept this premise, it's only an ivory tower hypothetical. It doesn't say anything about what actually goes on in games and what steps D&D should take to fix it.

Take the setup of 'an attentive guard is patrolling a brightly lit, near-featureless hall'. Two characters want to get past the guard. One of them is a super-sneaky mundane rogue with a +15 to stealth. The other is a wizard with a mere +2 or +3 to stealth, but he has the invisibility spell.

I can tell you right now that there are DMs who would declare that the rogue autofails, even if they were able to juice their check to +30. And there are very few DMs that wouldn't give the wizard at least a chance to succeed. That is a clear imbalance of narrative power and one that happens in a lot of home games, enough that people complain bitterly about nerfing martials.

All that, and we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about or even use it as an anecdote for narrative power because any DM can always declare the invisible wizard auto-fails and the sneaky rogue has a chance of winning?

Honestly, I feel this falls 50/50 either way -- there are plenty of DMs who would not let the rogue sneak past in certain situations no matter their plusses, and plenty of DMs who'd let the wizard use up a spell slot, and then make them roll their +2/3 stealth check (and undoubtedly fail) because they clearly still make noise. Tie, no score drawn.

Regardless, this is just a single anecdote highlighting the same argument that has been going on for over 40 years: there is indeed a spell available that solves every (game-mechanical) problem that any other class has the (game-mechanical) ability to resolve through non-spell means. The spell version usually is a Boolean response (no roll required, either solves or does not), but is limited by memorization and limited slots (and if those limitations are somehow made irrelevant, then of course the spell-casters will run away with the game).

Leaving, as you suggest, the ivory tower hypothetical. Rogues have an answer to most problems, but not at 100% chance to succeed. Wizards have an answer to any problem, but not all problems (if they have Knock prepared, do they also have Spider Climb and Charm Person?), and they do not have enough spell slots to solve all the problems in a normal dungeon. Fighters, well, they have the ability to solve the problem of combat (and let's not pretend that that is an important part of the game), and then some skills (depending on edition) and any problem solved by anybody/RP/player ingenuity. This has been true from the start, and will be around forever, and the only question is how much. 5e seems to be pretty good in that spell slots (and magic items which effectively massively increase a spellcasters ability to cast when needed) are much scarcer, fighters and the like have more ability to get useful out-of-combat skills, and the 5 minute workday has garnered the scorn it so rightfully deserves.

Is it a perfect edition in that regard? Definitely not. Will it make everyone happy? Of course not. Has it made the martial-nonmartial divide not the clearly biggest point of stasis in the game? It seems to have done so. When it comes to character power or influence, the first question on peoples' minds no longer seems to be, "well, are the a main spellcaster-type?" anymore.

[CantigThimble]

To me, narrative power, especially in the context of a TTRPG, only means a character's current ability to affect the plot without breaking internal consistency (i.e. why is Conan in Act 3 suddenly shooting eye lasers) or introducing heretofore unseen story elements (oh, look, Conan found a genie and he can now shoot eye lasers).

The alternate definition which only judges narrative power by effect, rather than potential, is to me meaningless. Because it means that a level 20 fighter has as much narrative power as a level 3 fighter.

That's pretty much exactly the point I am making. I do not see a reason to correlate narrative power to class or level. The assumption that you make, that increasing mechanical power necessarily increases narrative power, does not accurately predict the outcomes that I see so I reject that hypothesis.

While higher level characters will often probably have more narrative power than lower level ones, I think that's more a result of the fact that they've been around for a long time rather than their level.

The amount of time that a character is played increases both their narrative and mechanical power. But that correlation does not mean that there is a causation from mechanical to narrative power.

A king may be just a 2nd or 3rd level character, but he exercises more narrative power than most 10th level characters could without somehow first attaining his level of influence.

In the same vein, Frodo has more narrative power than the other, far more mechanically powerful members of the fellowship because he has their loyalty. Because of that loyalty, he's the one on control of how the story goes, not them.

Or take Merry and Pippin, they didn't take down Isenguard because they had the "Befriend Ent" class ability or even due to having a high persuasion. They failed their persuasion rolls, but merely asking Treebeard to drop them off at a different end of the forest solved a narrative challenge more effectively than anything else could have.

This is why I make the case that any effect that class and level have is completely overshadowed by how the character is played and trying to correlate narrative and mechanical power is just the wrong way to go about it. Theoretically, the same player with the same drive could have more narrative impact with a high level character than a low level one or with one class rather than another. But when the effect is mostly tied to who the player is and how driven that player is by the particular situation and only tangentially related to what character he's playing... Arguing over which class and level are best for that small fraction of the result is making a mountain out of a molehill and seems more like an attempt to drag in other debates (like caster v martial) than to accurately address the question at hand.

[MaxWilson]

So let's extend this hypothetical: imagine Tolkein wanted Frodo to win this conflict, but he could only use common sense solutions a mundane character could use or abilities Frodo has shown to have used in the past. What are his options without making Galadriel lose her abilities, change her mind, introduce third-party intervention, or giving Frodo heretofore unseen additional powers?

Frodo treacherous stabs her in the heart with Sting and she dies.

Magic isn't very powerful in the Tolkienverse anyway, unless you're one of the Valar or Maiar. Contingency, Shield, Shapechange, Psychic Scream... Galadriel has nothing like that. Tolkien can quite plausible kill her off with a blade of treachery, any time he feels like it, and it will not be out of place.

[strangebloke]

I would define narrative power as the ability to decide the course of the story.

A level 20 wizard NPC has no narrative power if he does everything that the 12 year old crown Prince tells him to do. The prince has gobs of power. You might try to court the prince's favor, but you wouldn't waste your time influencing the arch mage.

However it's also perfectly appropriate to say that twenty levels of wizard grants more narrative power than 1 level of wizard.

Ultimately, the power lies not in the character who has the button, but in the player who decides when that button is pushed. That player may or may not be the one with the character who has the button.

The wizard who has teleport does have more bargaining ability of there's a disagreement about where to go, though.

[MaxWilson]

Ultimately, the power lies not in the character who has the button, but in the player who decides when that button is pushed. That player may or may not be the one with the character who has the button.

The wizard who has teleport does have more bargaining ability of there's a disagreement about where to go, though.

Aside:

It's hugely annoying to be in a party with a high-level Int 20 wizard played by a dim-witted, secretive player who thinks he's smart, and who will do things like ask everyone in the party (who all want to get out of the dungeon, whereas the wizard is the only one who wants to press forward and steal a Staff of the Magi), "Are you with me?" and refuse to explain what that means, and then when someone finally says, "Yes" to declare that that makes everyone else "willing" targets for Teleport and that he's Teleporting everyone deeper in the dungeon.

Smart PCs played by morons still act like morons. :-(