A Question of Narration in Combat

[Grogg of the North]

As a DM I try to talk about how the enemy may nimbly dodge aside or block with a shield. In a way, I'm trying to provide insight on the enemy's abilities, AC, and health.

As a player I'm usually too worried that I'm holding up the table so I only offer a small tidbit about what I'm doing. I usually get worse when I get to higher levels with iterative attacks since I don't want to describe my third swing for the round which will probably miss anyway.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'm fine with an incoherent narrative.

Whatever 'makes sense' at the time crossed with whatever is fun for us.

I can do narrative in D&D, but soon as you require "coherent" narrative (logical and consistant) and then define conherent as something d20s and bonuses, AC, and Hit Points can't provide.

The mechanics aren't logical and consistant strictly. I think they are reasonable and consistant enough but the bar for coherency is set higher than that.

 

[billd91]

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.

It doesn't make narration impossible, but it makes some specific narrations impossible and thus constrains the narrative space. It make it impossible, for example, for the two-handed weapon to simply miss. Maybe we're fighting in a forest or near some cover like a support beam, the target can't be protected because the cover of a tree blocked the weapon from hitting. The attack must somehow harm the target. You may say "But the target had to expend desperate energy to get behind that cover." I'd return, "Then reserve that narration for a low-damage roll hit that doesn't take the target down. But create space for the target to easily use the cover to conserve his energy because he's just that good."

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I don't put much effort in narrating combat in D&D. Mostly because I'm lazy and don't get hundreds of new narrative ideas every game, but I can at least argue with the 1-minute-rounds of old, where the die roll explicitly sums up a lot of actions.

I'm fine with more detailled narration when the mood strikes me, first and foremost with especially bad or good rolls (lop the head of, bury the axe in a tree), or some environmental effect presents itself (Entangle on targets beneath a willow tree).

 

[Storminator]

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.

I totally narrate moving my forces into Ukraine. And when I get pulled into the Conservatory by Professor Plum when I already know he's the killer?! Time for some heavy duty RP!

PS

 

[Alzrius]

I totally narrate moving my forces into Ukraine. And when I get pulled into the Conservatory by Professor Plum when I already know he's the killer?! Time for some heavy duty RP!

To be fair, most people forget that Mr. Boddy was blackmailing Professor Plum by threatening to reveal that he'd lost his license to practice psychiatry after he had an affair with a female patient, which would have jeopardized the Professor's standing at the World Health Organization.

That's how it could have happened.

 

[Storminator]

To be fair, most people forget that Mr. Boddy was blackmailing Professor Plum by threatening to reveal that he'd lost his license to practice psychiatry after he had an affair with a female patient, which would have jeopardized the Professor's standing at the World Health Organization.

That's how it could have happened.

You and I seem to have a habit of derailing perfectly innocent discussions . . .



PS

 

[Alzrius]

You and I seem to have a habit of derailing perfectly innocent discussions . . .

All the derailings...they were caused by us all along!

[video=youtube;kdhhQhqi_AE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdhhQhqi_AE[/video]

 

[Hussar]

Well done sirs, well done.

 

[pemerton]

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

They don't even tell us that, do they? For instance, we don't know whether a "miss" in the mechanical sense was a blow that was dodged or parried (ie in a certain sense hit). We don't know whether a "hit" in the mechanical sense caused a cut, or a bruise, or was a blow that was parried (ie in a certain sense missed) but nevertheless cause hurt or distress due to its force.

There are outer edges. For instance, we know as long as a person is still standing they haven't been maimed (because no amount of hit point loss to a conscious target can lead to Regeneration being necessary to heal). But within those outer limits we are pretty free to narrate as we like.