Evocative Combat

[Album Cover X]

Some good ideas here... combat can be boring or exciting depending on any number of factors. Like some of the others have already mentioned, I too, do my best to prepared beforehand and give descriptions during combat.

I think, some of it is just the nature of the rules. To some players and maybe DMs, the stop-start-pause nature of turns and rounds in combat is a hurdle. And then when you throw minis into the equation the game can go from stroytelling to an excerise in math.

My biggest problem with D&D combat, maybe RPG combat in general, is that really memorable combat relies on the players. If they just stand in one place and swing repeat and rinse that gets old. Organic fluid-like movement in combat is hard to achieve when players are afraid of AoOs and things like that.

 

[DM_Jeff]

Description

>>Describing combats is one of my most favorite things to do. I relish it, and I don't mind taking the extra time to throw in a few descriptive phrases.

Perfectly said, which I subscrube to, and the key here is "a few". As someone else posted, a description for every action swing, hit miss, move, etc can get a little silly. Especially in a group who strives for unique words or phrases so they don't sound familiar...

"I step on the neck of my fallen foe and squirt his torso with my blade, twisting it within his seething carcass..."

"Your axe vivisects your enemy, freeing his innards from their mortal encagement and sending him to the Planescape setting by way of death..."

"Your foe dies almost instantly from shock and blood loss...you and your buddies are covered in crimson goo and the pulping chunks left after..."



-DM Jeff

 

[GandhitheBFG]

how about convincing your players to do things that are out of the ordinary, or things that are almost impossible to do without a description? such as pulling a red dragon off a friend (been there...) or using a teleporting onto a flying balor (been there as well )

if people use special abilities in combat, MAKE them say what they're doing:

PC: 'I grapple the dragon to set Cleric free...rolled sixty'
DM: 'Sorry?'
PC: 'I grapple the dragon! WITH A SIXTY! Now Cleric's ungrappled!'
DM: 'Nope, still not getting it...'
PC: 'FINE...i run up to the dragon, roaring, grab him by the tail, and try to pull him off the cleric'

eventually, they should just get used to the idea of role, rather than roll playing (no offence to your players if it's just the combat that's the problem)

 

[Eltern]

That's a really good idea, GandhitheBFG, one I will implement!
The key problem that I have found is environment. I am a prepackaged DM, most of my DMing experience has been in running adventures I bought, like Banewarrens and RttToEE. Niether of these adventures are bad, in fact storywise they are truly excellent, but in combat there is a distinct dungeon trend. The majority of these combats, and combats in general, do not have any exceptional terrain or environmental factors to bring into the combat. I'm sure whenever most of you imagine "cinematic" combat the thought of swinging from a chandelier or jumping over a table comes to mind. The standard fight scene in D&D does not have STUFF! You need STUFF! As a player, I always try to use bookcases, torch scones, etc. to my advantage, but often times they are not their, or ill-defined. ex. "Yeah, there are some tables around." "Where?" "Eh..not really important" As a DM, I don't get these factors in my premade adventures :\ I can always spice it up, yes, but this I think is one of the initial failings of a standard D&D combat.

Eltern, who swings away on rope to get into the rafters, where he proceeds to knock the roof down upon you.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

Gordon the Unstoppable is a two-weapon fighting elf of a modest 12 levels. He makes six attacks per round, has half a dozen items that add to his attack roll and damage under various situations, and can smite.

Just rolling the attack rolls (which have to be rolled sequentially, not all at once, to preserve D&D's iterative BAB) takes several seconds at an absolute minimum (i.e., he's completely on the ball). Resolving the effects takes another second or two (assuming he rolled the damage dice with each attack roll). It takes 1-2 seconds to do a pretty decent description of what he is doing. If he's florid about it, 4-5 seconds. Any longer, and he's giving a speech. He's an extreme example - most characters that my players have created only take 5-6 seconds to handle rolls and results in combat.

NPCs and monsters get less description, because the game isn't about them, but they take the same amount of time in the system. Assuming six players and 10 NPCs or monsters, you end up with a minimum of about 80 seconds or more of mechanics, and 30 seconds or less of description. And that's assuming everyone is on the ball and more-or-less describing up a storm.

The problem isn't getting more description into the game, it's maintaining energy and visualization between one description and the next. If you lose the energy, you stop describing things. When you stop describing things, it becomes harder to get the energy back.

Some of the things we do to help:

1. Declare actions ahead of time. Everyone states what they are going to do, round robin. This acts as an overview of the round to come, reduces decision-making time during the actual round, eliminates actions that cause someone to have to do something else, and gives everyone an idea of what they need to roll ahead of time.

2. Everyone rolls at the same time, where that is actually possible. Most of the time, it isn't possible, because of the way combat flows in D&D, but when it is, it is a huge time saver.

3. We get all of that out of the way FIRST. We do description SECOND, and all together. It is an interesting effect, but the "reward" at the end of each round, even though it is actually less quantity, seems to be of higher quality, and has more narrative flow to it.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I try to put some interesting descriptions in my combat scenes, but I don't go overboard, because, most of the time, the players are happy just because they were able to do "15 points of damage" (or whatever).

Also, combat descriptions can become really tedious and repetitive. My main objective as a DM while running combats is to keep the action going...

AR

 

[Kannik]

Cool, thanks for the replies.

I'm starting to think maybe I'm over reaching a bit thinkging about describign every single action. Perhaps a few descriptive words added in for measure ("I hit him solidly for 15 points of damage" or "His last blow shook my aim, and I glance off his shield") is enough for most cases -- when it comes to those criticals or those death blows (even if the person only had 1 HP left -grumblegrumble-) then it's time to whip out the can of literary description. Ditto with spellcasting descriptions (describe in detail the first time, less-so the second).

A balance between descriptive and efficiency.

Though I agree with GandhitheBFG as well when it comes to being sure to describe large action(s) through more than mechanics. (I play 80% of the time, so it's rare I can 'force' description)

A while back I had begun working on a tool for our DM that was simply a chart not of specific hit results, but instead of attack direction, type of swing and probable hit areas. Wanting some colour, he could roll and determine it was an overhead strike that came down at an angle, or a thrust, or whathave you. But I never did finish it, so I don't know if it would've been useful or if it would have bogged the game down much.

Having such a tool and/or a small list of some descriptive hits may be good to keep around for those 'big hits' that are worth describing in full, leaving the rest to a possible list of simple adjectives and adverbs.

But I'm glad to know I"m not the only one who struggles with this! }:>

Thanks again,

Kannik

 

[Presto2112]

Something I've been thinking about lately is actually something that the players can do to enhance their own descriptions...

When the DM rolls the attacks for the NPCs and monsters, and the attacks miss, perhaps different descriptions for how they missed.

For example, if the attack was a near miss (1 - 4 below AC):

"The sword glances harmlessly off Beldar's armor."

if the miss was a little under that (5-9 below AC):

"Beldar deftly ducks under the savage swipe of the lizard man's claw!"

and so on and so forth...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The thing about using description to create evocative combat is that, no matter how many synonyms for miss, wound, wound grievously, kill, kill gruesomely, and kill in manners worthy of a rolemaster crit chart, you're still describing hitting and missing. Combats will generally have the same challenges and tactics.

To change this, it's important to change the environment. Use terrain. The evil swashbuckler doesn't just do an acrobatic charge towards the players. Instead, he leaps up, tumbles past the half-orc, lands on the table (makes a balance check to stay there) and stabs at the rogue gaining a +1 advantage for being on higher ground. Grokko the half-orc then grabs the other end of the table and flips it over (making a strength check to flip it over--which, if successful, will be opposed by the swashbuckler's dex check (like a trip roll) to see if Grokko dumps the swashbuckler onto his face or if the swashbuckler deftly lands on his feet. Seeing the swashbuckler land on his feet, the cleric grabs the table and, using it for cover, attempts to bull-rush the swashbuckler into the fireplace.

In that example, even the game mechanical descriptions are somewhat evocative because the players and NPCs are taking advantage of the environment and incorporating it into their tactics. Those tactics probably won't be seen again for a long while because there aren't many situations where the situation would allow it but once players get the idea of using terrain to their advantage, combats will tend to look much more dynamic.

Another thing to make combat evocative is to run NPCs on different initiatives and have them 1. Talk to each other and 2. respond to the PCs.

An NPC who taunts the barbarian about a critical fumble (house rule) and stabs him in the spleen instantly becomes more cinematic than an enemy who simply twists his blade into the barbarian's back. An NPC rogue who says "plan one on pointy hat," pointing at the wizard and then tumbles over next to him and readies an action when his companion replies "got it" and who swears at his companion for being too slow if the barbarian moves onto the other side of the wizard to prevent the flank is more evocative than the NPC who just sits there. And, if the PC wizard says "I'm going to fireball" and the NPCs say "Clear out! Don't bunch up and gak the frikkin' mage!" it's more evocative than if they stand idly by.

Evocative combat is about dynamic interaction not just about the gruesomeness of your descriptions.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I've been thinking about this exact same thing. My concern is that it will make long battles even longer. I think I might try making an exhaustive list of adjectives to describe the action (no charts or rolling!!!) so I don't get a braincramp in the middle of the battle. Hopefully, my descriptiveness will carry over to the players...