D&D 5E How do you roleplay your PC actions in combat?

[ehenning]

I'm curious. Seems there are two types of responses here. One is about how the player narrates his character, which really (to me) is a description of actions you are attempting, and the narration of the reaction/result, which is most often done by the DM, unless the DM explicitly call out that the player gets to describe his success (ala Critical Role, "How do you want to do this?")

I realize only some people do it this way. Is this normal for your groups, or do you share narration roles in a different way?

 

[Psikerlord#]

I'm curious. Seems there are two types of responses here. One is about how the player narrates his character, which really (to me) is a description of actions you are attempting, and the narration of the reaction/result, which is most often done by the DM, unless the DM explicitly call out that the player gets to describe his success (ala Critical Role, "How do you want to do this?")

I realize only some people do it this way. Is this normal for your groups, or do you share narration roles in a different way?

Over time I have found it more fun to narrate what my PC actually does - after seeing rolls - rather than what they attempt to do. I have found DMs are cool with this, they have plenty other things to describe. I find it a bit... boring... to only describe attempts, personally. Perhaps I have been playing too long, and DM'ed too much!

 

[iserith]

I'm curious. Seems there are two types of responses here. One is about how the player narrates his character, which really (to me) is a description of actions you are attempting, and the narration of the reaction/result, which is most often done by the DM, unless the DM explicitly call out that the player gets to describe his success (ala Critical Role, "How do you want to do this?")

I realize only some people do it this way. Is this normal for your groups, or do you share narration roles in a different way?

In my groups, the players describe only what they want to do. Sometimes I ask them to narrate the result of the adventurers' actions (especially on a killing blow or critical hit) and sometimes I ask them to describe the environment when I want to engage the players in collaborative world- or scene-building.

When a player describes what he or she wants to do, I make sure that they make the character's goal, approach, and intent clear through narrative description. I do not let them get away with "I want to make a Stealth check." That's a big no-no at my table because how and when to use the rules is solely up to the DM. I also don't like it when DMs describe actions for players on the "back end." I feel players should be reasonably specific and descriptive with what they are describing what they want to do that the DM can simply narrate the result the result of the adventurers' actions without establishing things the character is doing.

DM: The orc rushes up to you and smashes the door to smithereens with its greataxe, having missed its true target - you. As it growls and begins to lift up its weapon to attack again, what do you do?
Player: I attack with my sword. *rolls* 18. *rolls* 8 piercing damage.
DM: Before the orc can raise its greataxe to block your attack, you roll around to its undefended side and deftly lunge forward with your rapier. You stab right through its hide armor.

^ I hate that. The player has not adequately described his or her action in my view and the DM is overstepping his or her role by describing what the character is doing. It's so, so common, too. It's the equivalent of someone not holding up his or her end of the conversation and encouraging someone else to fill the void.

DM: The orc rushes up to you and smashes the door to smithereens with its greataxe, having missed its true target - you. As it growls and begins to lift up its weapon to attack again, what do you do?
Player: I try to roll around to its undefended side and deftly lunge forward with my rapier before it can raise its greataxe to block my attack.
DM: Alright, let's see an attack and damage roll.
Player: *rolls* 18 to hit, 8 piercing damage.
DM: You do indeed get past its defenses and your blade pierces its hide armor. Green blood wells from the wound as it howls in anger and raises its greataxe over its head.

^ That is better in my view. Faced with the first example, I start to ask the player to describe how his or her character's action looks before I do anything else. I don't want to describe the character's action for the player. Instead, I want the player to hold up his or her end of the conversation. Most are more than happy to oblige and, when necessary, I use positive reinforcement in the form of granting Inspiration.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For me, role playing a PC in combat has nothing to do with narration. It is what your character says and actually does in combat that is important. Narration is something that happens in the re-telling of the combat at the inn. Playing the persona that you created is all that is needed. I agree with Shidaku that flowery descriptions of actions get tedious.

During combat, think about your character's personality. Is your character brave or a bit cowardly? A clever tactician or a brute that likes to smash? Let your character's personality guide how you behave in combat. I enjoy doing that because its fun and more satisfying than just flashy descriptions of hits & misses.

 

[kalil]

For me, role playing a PC in combat has nothing to do with narration. It is what your character says and actually does in combat that is important. Narration is something that happens in the re-telling of the combat at the inn. Playing the persona that you created is all that is needed. I agree with Shidaku that flowery descriptions of actions get tedious.

During combat, think about your character's personality. Is your character brave or a bit cowardly? A clever tactician or a brute that likes to smash? Let your character's personality guide how you behave in combat. I enjoy doing that because its fun and more satisfying than just flashy descriptions of hits & misses.

Just want to +1 this. A good old "I attack" is PERFECT role-playing in combat if that is what your character would do. "I try to stop the bleeding" or "I stagger back into the darkness" are other good examples because they express your character through WHAT he does not HOW he does it. "I jump onto the table and stand on one hand as I attack" grows old incredibly quick and is basically just wasting everyone's time without adding anything beyond unnecessary adjectives to the story.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I like your version Iserith. But my preferred approach is something like this:

DM: The orc rushes up to you and smashes the door to smithereens with its greataxe, having missed its true target - you. As it growls and begins to lift up its weapon to attack again, what do you do?
Player: I attack with my sword... *rolls* 18 to hit, 8 piercing damage... OK, I roll around to its undefended side and deftly lunge forward with my rapier before it can raise its greataxe to block my attack. Green blood rushes from the wound!
DM: The orc howls in anger and raises its greataxe over its head, preparing for its next swipe at you.

 

[cmad1977]

Our narration varies from player to player. However, as DM I have lately been asking for a 'kill cam' from my players so they can describe in brief detail the demise of their target.

 

[iserith]

I like your version Iserith. But my preferred approach is something like this:

DM: The orc rushes up to you and smashes the door to smithereens with its greataxe, having missed its true target - you. As it growls and begins to lift up its weapon to attack again, what do you do?
Player: I attack with my sword... *rolls* 18 to hit, 8 piercing damage... OK, I roll around to its undefended side and deftly lunge forward with my rapier before it can raise its greataxe to block my attack. Green blood rushes from the wound!
DM: The orc howls in anger and raises its greataxe over its head, preparing for its next swipe at you.

I'd be okay with this in my game, but wouldn't do it in someone else's game unless they asked me to narrate the result of my adventurer's action.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Most are more than happy to oblige and, when necessary, I use positive reinforcement in the form of granting Inspiration.

I think using Inspiration is the kind of thing that definitely needs to be done if we want to consistently see player narration in D&D combat.

The fact of the matter is that D&D doesn't provide any built-in incentive to narrate combat--in the sense of having it actually matter to the results of the action (as some other RPGs do). This makes it purely cosmetic, and as much as I like those cosmetics, there is a hollow feeling when it doesn't really do anything. If we want them to really feel that what they describe is what is actually happening in the world (rather than "attack is made; 18 is rolled" being what is actually happening) there need to be some sort of consequences, positive or negative, based on the narration.

That's an element I feel so strongly about that in my own RPG design I actually allow for nudging results one way or another after any random results have been seen. Ie, a last minute "I throw myself prone in an attempt to avoid that axe blow" might actually save you from an attack that barely hit you, at the cost of leaving you prone.

In D&D though, probably out of habit and not wanting to clutter the rules up, I don't bother implementing rules for it, and consequently I end up just doing most of the narration when I'm DM, and as a player my narration is minimal. It's rather unsatisfying to describe how you perfectly take advantage of a specific opportunity, only to have it make absolutely no difference to your chances of success.

 

[iserith]

I think using Inspiration is the kind of thing that definitely needs to be done if we want to consistently see player narration in D&D combat.

There's one other way that you touch on below.

The fact of the matter is that D&D doesn't provide any built-in incentive to narrate combat--in the sense of having it actually matter to the results of the action (as some other RPGs do).

There's no mechanical incentive, sure, but in terms of achieving the goals of play, I would suggest that everyone being descriptive does make for a more exciting, memorable story. Thus, it makes it easier to achieve the goals of play.

This makes it purely cosmetic, and as much as I like those cosmetics, there is a hollow feeling when it doesn't really do anything. If we want them to really feel that what they describe is what is actually happening in the world (rather than "attack is made; 18 is rolled" being what is actually happening) there need to be some sort of consequences, positive or negative, based on the narration.

I think the answer is for everyone to treat those descriptions as more than just cosmetic. After all, how do we judge the efficacy of a character's action when it's not combat? From time to time, when it makes sense, the DM should be handing out auto-success, auto-failure, advantage, or disadvantage depending on how the player describes what he or she wants to do during the fight. Especially in combat, most players tend to assume that "attack = roll" when that's not necessarily always the case. I remind players not to decide for themselves whether their action has an uncertain outcome or not. That's for the DM to do and that the smart play is to avoid making rolls and go for auto-success. That requires smart ideas (but not necessarily "flowery" description, as some would call it).

DMs: Are you sometimes handing out auto-hits, auto-misses, advantage, and disadvantage in combat based on how a player describes an attack against a foe? If so, would you share some examples? If not, why aren't you?