Anyone tried Narrative Combat?

So Adamant Entertainment released a book called Narrative Combat that intrigued me enough to not only buy it, but actually try to playtest it in the final session of my long-running Barsoom campaign.

I didn't have time to prep out as much as I was hoping to, so some of the details slipped past me, but it worked out great, I have to say. I'll definitely be using this thing again.

Basically what you do is define an encounter as a set of thresholds, events and outcomes, and then let players describe what they want to do -- and those actions contribute to meeting (or preventing) the assorted thresholds, trigger events, and lead to outcomes.

It's just what d20 combat needed, in my opinion. It nicely complements the existing tactical maneuvering system and lets you run much broader, more free-form combats than the 5' square allows.

My example combat had the players seated in thrones that acted as control systems for the entire world. They could fold space and were sort of simultaneously in the same spot and widely distributed across the globe. They could sort of move, but they always stayed in the thrones. The bad guys were a group of alien cthulhuid god-things that were tearing apart the very fabric of reality. The heroes had to cast a ritual spell in order to convert the god-things into spirit creatures that could then be bound into mortal flesh (that bit's kinda complicated, don't worry about it too much).

So there they are, folding space and being all schrodinger, and the god-things are raining destruction down on their heads. So the players have to decide if they're going to try and attack, or defend their comrades, or whatever. The meat shields end up defending the spellcasters, the ranged guys fire away while the spellcasters try desperately to gather the required number of Spellcraft successes. It was great fun. The rules make defending a comrade really effective (though costly), and there was something fun for everyone to do every round.

I didn't know the rules super well, so I was kind of handwaving some stuff, but even that worked just fine.

Immediately following that we had a traditional combat on a grid against the spirit creatures, so it was an interesting comparision.

You wouldn't want to use NC for EVERY combat, but there's definitely a real value to it for those combats that for whatever reason don't lend themselves well to a grid (too many (or too few) combatants, lots of non-maneuver-based action, etc). It's perfect for "stop the ritual" or "complete the ritual" type of combats, and the rules explain how to use the system for kidnapping scenarios, duels, mass battles and lots more.

A very interesting and, on a first test, very playable system. Recommended.

That sounds really cool! It sounds like a more detailed version of the scene-based resolution mechanic in Malestrom Storytelling by Hubris Games. I'll definitely have to check this out. Thanks for tipping me off!

I used that for like half a combat in my PbP game once (not this specifically, but the same concept). At some point, when things appeared to be more manageable and interesting, I switched to standard combat rounds and proceeded from there.

Bye
Thanee

barsoomcore said:

My example combat had the players seated in thrones that acted as control systems for the entire world.

Click to expand...

Hm. If and when I run such a combat (which may well be never, given how specific your example is) I'll consider it. I'd be far more interested in hearing about how well it does, say, a bunch of 1st and 2nd level characters agaisnt a bunch of kobolds.

Sounds interesting. To me, at least, it's the d20 combat system that I enjoy and like. Not sure if this will be the thing for me, but it might be worth a look.

Pinotage

Hello Everyone!

Barsoomcore, I'm glad you enjoyed running a conflict under the Narrative Combat system. I also agree with your assessment that you shouldn't use it for every combat. We did not intend for NC to completely replace standard d20 combat. It is a supplement for when you need to do something the map-based tactical system handles poorly or when you want greater control over scene focus.

To explain that idea a bit better lets examine Umbran's example of 1st/2nd level characters against kobolds. It's actually one the playtesters explored in some depth, so I may get a bit longwinded. I’ll also try to avoid NC specific terminology though its obviously easier to describe this if you’ve read the book…

In standard d20 combat we control the encounter threat by varying the number of combatants, their level, and the map. The level of detail in each character’s action (the players' characters and the kobolds) remains the same regardless of the number of combatants. This causes a fight against four kobolds and a fight against forty to scale in a roughly linear fashion. The bookkeeping, on the other hand, expands exponentially.

NC handles the encounter based on how much detail the Game Master and the players want from it. A minor encounter may take a single round and involves simple descriptions on the players’ part. A more complex encounter, or one the players decide to make exciting, could take several rounds (usually no more than three) and involve complicated action/reaction descriptions. The mechanics behind the descriptions remain consistant and as simple as I could squeeze into d20 without breaking it.

To take this down to the next level of detail, let's examine a specific scene.

Example Scene: The adventurers burst though a ratty curtain. On the other side they find forty kobolds and a kobold shaman getting ready for a meal.

In standard d20 we break out the map and the paper figs or discard the entire map variable (and its associated controls/tactics). An experienced Game Master uses various tricks to compile kobold attacks and establishes a casualty threshold at which the kobolds retreat. He may also use the "swarm" approach, where the kobolds are mechanically 4 or 5 "creatures" with a hit point pool.

In narrative combat we first decide how important this scene is to the overall adventure. A minor encounter has a comparatively lower damage threshold and damage events with no actual opponents. A medium encounter might have a opponent and modest thresholds/events; the opposed character extends the length of the scene and makes it more interactive. An important or climax encounter might have multiple thresholds and several "tiers" or "cells" allowing for changing tactical/strategic situations along with one or more opposed characters. In some cases you might even break back into standard d20 combat because it gives you the right tools and feel.

To make these airy nothings more concrete, let us go one step further down. From the above scene:

Minor: The kobold shaman is window dressing and foreshadowing. He ducks out the back while the characters scatter the camp in one combat round. The kobold’s fall back and regroup, initiating a series of other encounter templates (linked or not) building up to a climax.

Medium: The kobold shaman casts one spell as an event then retreats. He is still not actually present as an opposition character. The thresholds and incoming damage events are primed for 2-3 rounds of combat and the Game Masters/players give longer descriptions of their activities. The combat end sets up a number of other templates representing the kobolds fall back positions.

Important/Climax: The kobold shaman ignores the characters, instead turning to the idol of his fallen god. He needs to make 2 Knowledge (religion) skill checks (DC 14) to add both magic and fire to the damage the kobold warriors do as they charge forward. The characters must shut him down before he does so (the mechanics allow for three approaches and you could script more). Meanwhile the kobold chieftain comes out of his tent on the second round increasing the kobold’s damage threshold and event based damage. He may be an actual opponent or just a special effect accompanying the increasing event.

Does that help?

Shannon

P.S.
Oh, and a confession on the author's part - in the middle of a session I handwave a bit myself.

skalvar -

You win some points for asystem that seems to have an interesting concept. You lose a few of those for gratuitous and incorrect use of the term "exponential".

It sounds different enough from standard combat that I'd be unlikely to use it in D&D proper - I expect my players would prefer consistency, rather than flopping back and forth between two different systems, and much of character advancement and mechanical develpment in D&D is keyed into the normal combat system. But, when paired with a system whose original design includes this for combat, you might have something interesting.

Umbran;

I'll take what points I have left and collect my tokens I think.

RE: Character Development and Change
Well, we included a whole set of rules for translating existing feats and such into the system so you could pick and choose from standard d20 elements. It works modestly well, though I'm sure it could be improved.

Each group is different as far as its ability to change. I've encountered groups that thrive on the change of pace and groups where the players curl into a fetal position at the whisper of a rumor of a rules change. Everyone has to judge for themselves where their group as a whole stands in the that regard.

RE: A system of its own
That might be interesting, eh? How about a fully d20 compatiable system....

Nah, that would be telling.

Shannon

skalvar said:

Each group is different as far as its ability to change. I've encountered groups that thrive on the change of pace and groups where the players curl into a fetal position at the whisper of a rumor of a rules change. Everyone has to judge for themselves where their group as a whole stands in the that regard.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between "change" and "inconsistency". My people are fine with change - they'll try new systems readily, switched editions of D&D without any complaints, and so on.

However, you put together and progress a character with a certain set of expectations about what the universe they work in is like. If, at any given moment, they may be subjected to either of two different combat systems, the players don't have a solid set of expectations upon which to base their choices.

RE: A system of its own
That might be interesting, eh? How about a fully d20 compatiable system....

Click to expand...

Honestly, I'd probably be more interested if it weren't d20 compatible. Despite the hype, d20 is not the end-all, be-all of gaming systems. It's good for some things, but not others, and I'm a "right tool for the job" kind of GM. I'd prefer you figure out what genre and style of game your combat system works for, and build the system to play for that purpose. But that's just me.

Umbran said:

Honestly, I'd probably be more interested if it weren't d20 compatible. Despite the hype, d20 is not the end-all, be-all of gaming systems. It's good for some things, but not others, and I'm a "right tool for the job" kind of GM. I'd prefer you figure out what genre and style of game your combat system works for, and build the system to play for that purpose. But that's just me.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. Especially since (if I'm reading this right) this system uses one or two die rolls to represent a lot of combat, I'd think you would want to use a more agressively average system than d20 provides. Its all well and good in 'normal' combat to have a 1st level commoner occasionally get lucky and crit with his non proficeint spiked chain, or a 10th level fighter roll a one and miss a blinded stunned opponent... There are enough rolls in a given combat for the character to (generally) shine through over the randomization. But if 3 rolls are going to represent a massive combat, the randomization factor needs to be much less, to show the average abilities of the characters.

Just my instinct.