Anyone tried Narrative Combat?

[Pinotage]

Does using this system mean that you're throwing out all mechanics barring the occassional skill check? Or are there actually rolls related to characters in the system? What I'm basically asking is will the result be the same in a given situation if you had, for example, a 20th level character with no magical items, and one loaded as required? Is there any dependence on the characters' abilities, feats, magical items?

Pinotage

 

[Umbran]

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.

*nod*. Good point.

A D&D character is designed withteh basic idea that what they do moment-by-moment is important. And it does sound like this system gloms many moments together, which might tend to wash out some of the specialness built into particular characters.

If that's true, then it'd be better to attach the combat system to a character who has abilities designedto ack on the timescale fo the combat system.

 

[skalvar]

Does using this system mean that you're throwing out all mechanics barring the occassional skill check? Or are there actually rolls related to characters in the system? What I'm basically asking is will the result be the same in a given situation if you had, for example, a 20th level character with no magical items, and one loaded as required? Is there any dependence on the characters' abilities, feats, magical items?

Pinotage

That's a good question Pinotage.

No, you do not throw out all mechanics. You use your exsiting character build (barring some feat translation) to play a strategic conflict game involving mechanics drawn from d20. Character abilities, choices, feats, and magic items all play a reasonably familiar part. Now, there's an interesting theoretical discussion as to whether or not you can get away with not loading up with the "required" magical items - I'd say yes, some others might say no. It would depend on how you structured the higher level encounter templates.

In fact, the interesting conversation in the thread above aside, we went to some effort (about a year's work) to create a consistent and playable experience for the players. In actual games people do not seem to find shifting between one and the other a problem, though I do think you shouldn't try to shift between one round and the next. Trying that at the game table started a revolt in my group.

Do you mind if I add your question to the Questions and Answers thread over on the Adamant forum?

Shannon

 

[jezter6]

I've been looking at this myself, but still haven't mustered the guts to get it.

Sure, it looks great from the standpoint you're taking...a party of 4 PCs vs a horde of enemies that take too long to roll up attacks and damage. How does this work in normal combat that isn't so overloaded, just...1 on 1 or....3 on 2?

The examples also tend to do stuff like deals XdY of damage to players every round...doesn't that sound a little too...railroading? I mean, how do you plan on surviving when you know you're getting hit for so much damage, there's no chance of being missed or a battle turning in your favor for a few rounds then against you, it all seems like water flowing down a river. You read the script and things happen at exactly the points you planned them, there's really no ebb and flow to it.

 

[skalvar]

Jezter6,

Good questions. Let's see if I can answer them without going off the deep end.

RE: Managable Numbers
Well, you can certainly use the system for small fights. We give an example of a duel where grace and wit matter as much as courage and steel. That said a small but important fight with strictly tactical goals may well resolve more effectively under standard d20 combat. It delibrately highlights each action which by default gives you that "blow by blow" detail common to climatic moments.

RE: Damage Incoming
In standard d20 there isn't much you can do to stop damage from piling up. You just have to hope the dice (or the GM) turn in your favor. In NC you have the option to not only negate damage but to "pull" it from one participant to another using the defensive stance. Thus barsoomcore's description of the "meat shields" protecting the casters; characters with high hit points have the option to pull dice of damage from their allies to themselves. It hurts but when you have triple the hit point of your fragile friend it might make sense.

As far as unpredictable turns, we use dice of damage not pre-established values. You can still get those rounds where you don't take much (or any depending on your own abilities/events/character choices) damage and rounds where you just get hammered into the ground by three dice rolling their maximums.

RE: Railroading
Railroading is always possible, in any system or game.

In NC every player has choices to make each round. More importantly, every choice matters. I haven't gone into the action system in this thread at all. If you like I can cut and paste an example of it from an answer I gave on the Adamant forum. Alternately you can just check it out there. I'm keeping a log of questions and answers to add to the FAQ.

I'd also like to address another point. Ebb and flow do not come from dice but from choice and interaction. This is as true in NC as it is in standard d20 combat. If it wasn't (and it wasn't in the first iteration) I would have scrapped the project before it got to print.

I hope that provides clarity rather than confusion.

Shannon

P.S. Oh, and do you mind if I add your questions to the list?

 

[Pinotage]

No, you do not throw out all mechanics. You use your exsiting character build (barring some feat translation) to play a strategic conflict game involving mechanics drawn from d20. Character abilities, choices, feats, and magic items all play a reasonably familiar part. Now, there's an interesting theoretical discussion as to whether or not you can get away with not loading up with the "required" magical items - I'd say yes, some others might say no. It would depend on how you structured the higher level encounter templates.

Do you mind if I add your question to the Questions and Answers thread over on the Adamant forum?

Shannon

No, go ahead. I'd be interested to hear what they say. Low level characters and players really look forward to, for example, that +1 weapon, and higher level players look forward to getting their hands on other magic, or even crafting stuff. If the system negates the effects of having a +1 weapon, then it takes away from some of the enjoyment of building a character. I can certainly see the uses for this is a more 'freeform' game, but I'm still uncertain with regard to how it really interacts with the game mechanics.

Pinotage

 

[barsoomcore]

My comments:

People are making a lot of assumptions about this system that are untrue. It does NOT negate the value of magic items, feats, abilities or smart choices. It can be run as detailed as you like (each round is still six seconds, though you could easily alter that), with as much richness in action description as you like.

The biggest difference I've found is that it's less rigorous with respect to positioning. Since you aren't moving items around on a grid, there's no way to trigger or restrict/allow events (like attacks of opportunity or charges or whatnot) based on the precise relative position of elements. This is neither good nor bad, just different. Suitable for some types of events, not so much for others. Note that you can STILL charge, trip, whatever, and there can be outcomes from those actions, it's just not as rigorously enforced.

But I'm hearing a lot of concern based on assumptions that are incorrect. Thought I'd point that out.

People who thrive on very carefully-optimized character builds will not like this so much, since it alters a couple of basic assumptions about game play. People who are a little more relaxed shouldn't have any problems -- magic items still give an advantage, feats like Cleave or Mobility etc still impact combat. The impacts aren't quite the same as they are in grid-based combat, but there's enough there to keep all but the most intense munchkins happy.

 

[Pinotage]

My comments:

People are making a lot of assumptions about this system that are untrue. It does NOT negate the value of magic items, feats, abilities or smart choices. It can be run as detailed as you like (each round is still six seconds, though you could easily alter that), with as much richness in action description as you like.

The biggest difference I've found is that it's less rigorous with respect to positioning. Since you aren't moving items around on a grid, there's no way to trigger or restrict/allow events (like attacks of opportunity or charges or whatnot) based on the precise relative position of elements. This is neither good nor bad, just different. Suitable for some types of events, not so much for others. Note that you can STILL charge, trip, whatever, and there can be outcomes from those actions, it's just not as rigorously enforced.

But I'm hearing a lot of concern based on assumptions that are incorrect. Thought I'd point that out.

People who thrive on very carefully-optimized character builds will not like this so much, since it alters a couple of basic assumptions about game play. People who are a little more relaxed shouldn't have any problems -- magic items still give an advantage, feats like Cleave or Mobility etc still impact combat. The impacts aren't quite the same as they are in grid-based combat, but there's enough there to keep all but the most intense munchkins happy.

That's good to know! Thanks!


Pinotage

 

[skalvar]

Well, I had a long rambling post written to answer Pinotage but Barsoomcore did it better in about a third the length. Curse of being the author I suppose.

Does anyone else have a question I can help with?

Shannon