A Question of Narration in Combat

[Hussar]

I tried to get an answer to this question before, but, it got buried. So, I'll give it another shot.


Can someone explain to me how DnD combat rules create a coherent narrative? I really don't see it. Using the mechanics of D&D, how do you go from "You roll a 15, you miss" or You roll a 16, you hit" to creating a coherent narrative of that combat that is based on the mechanics.

Note, I have no problem in narrating combat. That's fine. But, the narrative, IMO, is always pretty much freeform. There is no real correlation between what's going on at the table and what the narrative created is. The only thing you get told is "this round you are successful" or "this round you are unsuccessful". I guess "this combat is finished" also gets defined, sort of, but, not really how the fight is finished.

In a simulationist game, the mechanics would certainly define the narrative. You get told not only that your attack was unsuccessful, but exactly why it was unsuccessful. Maybe the attack was blocked, or dodged, or it was a complete whiff. On a successful attack, you are told how successful that attack was and often specifically what that successful attack was - you hit his arm, you hit his torso, he now loses use of his arm, that sort of thing.

The mechanics define the narrative.

So, referencing the actual mechanics of the game, how do you use D&D mechanics to create a coherent narrative of combat.

 

[Derren]

In 3E you had the different types of AC as rough guideline. When you missed the touch AC your blow failed to connect as the enemy dodged while hitting the touch but not the total AC meant the attack being parried, blocked with a shield or otherwise hitting the armor ineffectively. That distinction was even used for a few rules (shooting into melee I think for example).

 

[Hussar]

But, even then, the mechanics aren't really telling you anything, other than you missed. Ok, I roll high enough to hit his touch AC, but not through his actual AC. What happened? Does a shield only work 1 in 20 (or 1 in 10) times? That doesn't seem right. Why can't another character ever interfere with an attack? Did I actually contact the armor? Then why isn't my flaming sword burning him? Or setting his shaggy hide (presuming he has one) on fire?

And, where did I contact him?

That's a pretty thin veneer there.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I think in a simulation-centered game this is more defined science, whereas with D&D it's more interpretive art.

An short example from my game:

Fighter Player rolls 2 sword attacks against an invisible monster (a type of hell hound). Both miss, one is a critical miss. He re-rolls the miss using an ability and misses again...but the roll is high enough that he can use a human racial ability to give him a bonus turning it into a hit.

First of all, can you guess which edition? Haha

So, in the narrative that became:

You're attacking the same area where the Ranger just landed an arrow - the fletching is still slightly visible. As you lunge forward you hear the creature growl and suddenly your offhand blade is torn for your grasp by its jaws! (the critical miss)
Using that to guide your next strike, you swing where you expected its head to be...confirming that this is indeed a four-legged creature of some sort...but with your years of training you nimbly twist the blade mid-stroke and feel it connect with some sort of thick hide, connect but not quite penetrate. Your sweating now from proximity tithes creature's heat aura. (the miss, and the re-roll ability)
With sheer determination, you press your now free offhand down upon the hilt, using your body weight to drive it in. A yelp comes from the invisible beast as hot blood sprays across your forearms. (the human racial ability turns it to a hit)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Why do the mechanics need to provide anything more than hit/miss?

The current design leaves lots of room for application of imagination, which is a critical ingredient in an RPG IMO.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I play D&D as a game. I don't have to concern myself over a narrative for combat any more than I would when moving forces into the Ukraine when playing Risk.

" The narrative" will end up being whatever we can remember happening during the encounter when we are laughing about it years later.

 

[howandwhy99]

So, referencing the actual mechanics of the game, how do you use D&D mechanics to create a coherent narrative of combat.

I don't. D&D, like most every game, doesn't have the objective of creating a narrative.

 

[doghead]

...

So, referencing the actual mechanics of the game, how do you use D&D mechanics to create a coherent narrative of combat.

The combat system doesn't provide a great deal of detail as to why an attack was successful or not, and how the damage was inflicted. As you said, its up to you to fill in the description of what happened based on the outcome.

The lack of specific detail in this area isn't a fault. It a design decision. Some systems provide more detail, others even less than D&D. The former generally involves more rules, tables and dice rolls, the latter less. Personally, I prefer the latter.

As for how I deal with describing the attack, probably much like you. I look at the description of the action provided by the player and the outcome of the action based on the dice rolls make something up based on that.

thotd

 

[Hussar]

Why do the mechanics need to provide anything more than hit/miss?

The current design leaves lots of room for application of imagination, which is a critical ingredient in an RPG IMO.

I'm not saying that it does actually. I 100% agree with everyone who says that this isn't the point of the mechanics in D&D. Totally agree.

But, I got told a number of times that certain mechanics, like the dreaded Damage on a Miss, make narration impossible. That because of this or that mechanic (the term dissociated mechanic floats through the back of my brain, or 1 minute rounds for another example) it becomes difficult or downright impossible to narrate what's happening in the game.

Now, I disagree with that point, obviously. But, I'm willing to hear methods for how you would use D&D mechanics to determine the narrative in combat. I don't think it can be done. I think the mechanics might, at best, give you a place to start, but they don't determine much of anything about the narrative created by the table.

But, I'm willing to be wrong here. I'm trying to learn new things.

 

[GSHamster]

I don't understand why hit/miss doesn't constitute a narrative. Consider a basketball game.

A takes the ball down the court, passes to B. B shoots, scores.
C takes the ball down the court, passes to D. D shoots, misses.
A takes the ball down the court, passes to B. B shoots, scores.
...
Game is over, AB wins.

That's a narrative. I can follow what happened more or less.

Now, it isn't a very detailed narrative. A real announcer would add commentary on the type of shot, picks, etc.

But the above narrative is enough to give an idea of how the game goes and a rough idea of who is winning.

But then let's say that CD misses all their shots, but AB only misses 50%. If I then announce that CD won the game, because they were awarded points on some of their missed shots, I've broken the connection between narrative and reality.

I'm not really sure where I am going with this, but if I was implementing Damage-On-A-Miss, it would look something like:

Just That Awesome
You no longer miss attacks, because you're just that awesome. Roll attacks like normal, but if you would have missed, you instead strike a glancing blow for 1/2 damage. If a spell or effect would force your attack to miss, you instead strike a glancing blow for 1/2 damage. If a mage and/or elf looks at you funny, you may take a free action to strike him with a glancing blow for 1/2 damage.