Forked Thread: gimme some narration

[pukunui]

Forked from: gimme back my narration

Most of my players don't even use the "default" descriptions. They mostly just say "I use [insert power name here]" with no description whatsoever. I usually have to prompt them to get any sort of description. I even instituted a house rule that would give anyone who described their actions a +1-2 on their roll, but that hasn't made any difference.

I've got a cleric and a paladin who never invoke the names of their respective patron deities. In fact, the paladin almost never uses his powers, either. He just sticks to his basic attack. The fighter "uses" sure strike and cleave, while the ranger "uses" twin strike ... Only the guy playing the wizard is good about regularly being descriptive ("A silvery bolt of energy streaks out ..." or "a vertical column of flame envelopes ...") Sigh ...

To be honest, it's really starting to turn me off 4th Edition. I'm beginning to hate the whole powers format. My group seems to be more descriptive (although not always) when we play Star Wars than when we play D&D, and I think a large part of it is the powers. I also much prefer the talent-based class structure of SWSE and I'm thinking about trying to convert it to a "fantasy" game or using one of the conversions that's already been done (like the Gneech's S&S Saga).

Anyone else feel the same way? Anyone got any suggestions to help? I really like just about everything about 4e except for the class structure and a few other relatively minor things ... but at the moment I'm liking Saga even more, and I wish WotC had made 4e more like Saga.

Comments/questions/criticisms welcome.

 

[Hussar]

As a question, how much did they narrate in 3e? Assuming you played 3e together. I notice my 3e group rarely narrates anything in combat - they say, "I cast fireball, 32 damage" or "Power Attack for 3!" Any narration that comes out generally comes from me as the DM.

I wonder if your group is similar. Perhaps they are still in the 3e mindset where the DM generally does narrate most of the action IME.

A carrot approach might work as well. At the end of each combat, have a vote for who narrated their combat the best. Winner gets an Action Point. ((Or something like that))

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I would ask them to perhaps rather then thinking about "Powers" to think about what they would see their characters doing in that moment and address the power that would work best.

This is how we handle things and why we don't use the name of powers at all. Since we aren't thinking about the power, we are thinking what our character would do and uses the power that fits that.

Perhaps too, one of my houserules could help them break the idea of a power as a unique-entity. I allow my players to use only a section of a power if they want, for instance just a hit with no shift, or just a shift or a heal with not hit, etc. I also allow them to weave their power in with things like pg. 42, acrobatics, skill challenge, etc.

 

[pukunui]

As a question, how much did they narrate in 3e? Assuming you played 3e together. I notice my 3e group rarely narrates anything in combat - they say, "I cast fireball, 32 damage" or "Power Attack for 3!" Any narration that comes out generally comes from me as the DM.

I wonder if your group is similar. Perhaps they are still in the 3e mindset where the DM generally does narrate most of the action IME.

Yeah, that sounds like my group ... although only three of them played 3.5 with me. The other two -- one is new to roleplaying altogether, the other is new to d20 D&D. The other other two, who are supposedly going to be joining us next session, are also new to d20 D&D. The guys who played 3.5 with me had all also played 1e, 2e or both back in the day.

A carrot approach might work as well. At the end of each combat, have a vote for who narrated their combat the best. Winner gets an Action Point. ((Or something like that))

I tried something like that in my 3.5 game. I had everyone vote for the best "roleplayer" for each session and awarded that person with an action point card that they could cash in whenever ... Didn't really work. None of my "carrots" ever seem to work. Perhaps that's because I'm playing with a bunch of old timers, who are set in their ways, and newbies, who just don't know what to do.

I would ask them to perhaps rather then thinking about "Powers" to think about what they would see their characters doing in that moment and address the power that would work best.

This is how we handle things and why we don't use the name of powers at all. Since we aren't thinking about the power, we are thinking what our character would do and uses the power that fits that.

I've tried multiple times to get them to play like this and it just doesn't seem to work. I started a thread over on the WotC boards asking for help getting my players to "roleplay" more, and pretty much every suggestion people gave me was something that I'd already tried and that hadn't worked.

Perhaps too, one of my houserules could help them break the idea of a power as a unique-entity. I allow my players to use only a section of a power if they want, for instance just a hit with no shift, or just a shift or a heal with not hit, etc. I also allow them to weave their power in with things like pg. 42, acrobatics, skill challenge, etc.

I do this too but, again, it doesn't seem to make a difference. Every session, it's still:

FIGHTER: "I use sure strike" or "I use cleave on this guy, so that's an automatic 4 damage to that guy."
CLERIC: "I use healing word/healing strike" or "I use righteous brand. You get a +3 to hit this guy" (and, almost without fail, he uses his ally-boosting powers on enemies that he kills with the power so the booster effect gets wasted)
PALADIN: "I hit him with my axe."
RANGER: "I use twin strike again."
WIZARD: "I use fey step." (Fortunately, he also says things like "A silvery bolt of energy ..." and "a vertical column of flame ..." instead of "I use magic missile" and "I use scorching burst" ... although sometimes he just says "Magic missile on this guy." Which is fine if it's like the fourth time he's used it, I suppose.)


My players also suck at teamwork and tactics, so they never use think about combining powers or anything like that. It's always just, "OK, it's my turn. What am I going to do? Um ...".

Aaargh!


OK, so this is turning out to be more of a "I'm not happy with the way my group plays D&D" than a "I'm not happy with 4e" thread ... that's not really what I intended but whatever. I'll just roll with it.

For the record, though, I really am unhappy with the powers, but I don't think it's because of how my group uses them. WotC went on ad nauseum during the run-up to the release about how they were streamlining the system and making it super simple and elegant. While I think they definitely did that from the DM's side of the screen, they only succeeded in making the players' side more complicated ... and, what's more, they made a wonderfully elegant system for Star Wars and then decided not to use it for D&D. What were they thinking?! The more I play Saga, the more I prefer it over 4e (although I still vastly prefer 4e to 3.5). Talents are just way better than powers. I'm not sure if there's a rogue utility that lets you reroll a stealth check, but if there were, it would probably be an encounter power ... but in Saga, the Improved Stealth talent lets you do it as many times a day as you want! The other great thing about talents is that aside from having to take some of them before others, they're all level-independent. You can pretty much take whatever talent you want whenever you have that option (and same goes for the Force powers -- none of them have prerequisites), whereas with 4e, we still have a level-based system for class features.

I think what really bothers me about the powers, though, is the artificiality of the encounter/daily system, all the "gamist" terms used, and some of the choices WotC has made in terms of how often certain types of actions can be used. And, to be honest, it bothers me more with regard to Martial powers than it does to either Divine or Arcane ones, because the limits placed on those can be rationalized more easily. I can understand the game balance and "cinematic" arguments for only allowing a rogue to garrote somebody once a day, but the fact that this suggests that he can't even try to do it more often really irritates me (and instituting a wildly unbalanced recharge mechanic into my game doesn't seem to have done anything to alleviate this irritation on my part because now the focus is on the mechanical "recharging" of an ability rather than on the narration of getting lucky enough to pull it off again or something ...).

OK. That's enough for now. The more I think/write about it, the more I only seem to confirm my preference for Saga over 4e (yes, there are encounter/daily talents in Saga, but they aren't as numerous. For the most part, if you know how to do something, you can just do it whenever you want/need to do it).

EDIT: Would it be possible to graft a talent-based class structure onto 4e in place of the powers-based one?

 

[MichaelSomething]

You could try talking to your group. If they don't know its a problem to you, what can they do about it? Tell them, "I don't like it when you guys simply state what power you use. Can you try something different? I would really like that."

It could be your group is still learning 4E. Once they understand it, it should be easier for them to narrate their powers.

Of course, you could always switch to Saga if that's what would work best. Saga is a good system.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I gotta go with Michael Something on this. It looks like a table issue, rather than a game issue. Let me ask something, are the players bothered by this? Do they care? Has anyone approached you complaining about this?

It could very well be that this is your cross to bear and no one else's. A group template is an absolute must when starting a new campaign IMO. You, as DM, have to be 100% absolutely clear about what you expect from the players before you even try to roll up characters. It may very well be that the group is on a whole 'nother page in the playbook from you and are quite happy there.

I don't think you are going to solve this in game. You have to step back, and politely but very clearly state what is bothering you and why. Try to come to some sort of compromise that you are all groovy with.

Life is way too short to not enjoy your gaming time. It may be that it's time to try a different game, or maybe hang up the DM's hat for a bit and let someone else drive. Or, maybe it's time to move to a different group, if that's possible. Letting it fester or trying to serve hints won't work. Be open and honest, and most people will at least listen to you. Just be sure not to come from a position where you are lecturing them from the mountain - "This is the way thou shalt role play in MY GAME!" is not the best approach to take.

 

[pukunui]

I have talked to them. I've told them that I would like them to be more descriptive, and I have offered them several carrots to entice description, and despite the nods and affirmative responses I get every time I mention it, nothing ever seems to come of it.

Yes, it's possible that this is because they're still learning 4e. It's also possible that it's just their style of play. It's also possible that it's because we play on a Friday night and everyone is tired (and, unfortunately, this is the only time we can all meet - and, even then, some people don't make it to every session).

I could look for new players, but I don't know how lucky I'll be. Players are hard to find here in Auckland. I've had good players who played more how I like it but they've all left the group for various reasons (most went to Aussie, one went to the boonies, others wanted their Friday nights back ...).

And, also, it's not just my players. Even if they were more descriptive with their powers, I'm not sure that that would make me feel any better. It's the 4e class structure that I don't like. It's not what WotC said it was going to be. I don't feel cheated or lied to or anything extreme like that but I do feel disappointed. And now that I've been playing Saga long enough to really get a feel for it, I think its talent-based class structure is all-round simpler, more elegant, and more superior to the powers-based class structure of 4e and it's really starting to boggle my mind why WotC thought they needed to move on from Saga and do something completely different. Why couldn't they have just made Saga for D&D? I think it would've been a much better game than what 4e has turned out to be.

That being said, though, even if I was running a "Saga for D&D" game, there's no guarantee there'd be any more in-character narration/description going on that what I get now ...

What a lovely little circle I've painted myself into. Ha ha.


EDIT: Just had a thought. Rather than my players simply preferring a more "gamist" style of playing, I think that it's more that they're not good at improvising narration/description when put on the spot and either don't have the imagination or the inclination -- or simply don't have the time -- to come up with it ahead of time/outside of game time. I say this because I know they're all very busy people and whenever I quiz them on their preferred gaming styles, they all inevitably say they're more into the storytelling and roleplaying, yet they don't seem to do a lot of it when it actually comes down to it. Maybe I'm not a very good DM. Who knows ... gotta get some sleep now.

 

[MichaelSomething]

How about spending the first 20 minutes of each session doing roleplaying prep work? You know, writing descriptions for powers, talking about plot points, discussing what would happen. Stuff like that.

 

[pukunui]

How about spending the first 20 minutes of each session doing roleplaying prep work? You know, writing descriptions for powers, talking about plot points, discussing what would happen. Stuff like that.

That's a good idea. I'll give it a try. Thanks.

 

[Derro]

I'll try to keep this short cause I'm a bit of a longwinded blow-hard.

If 4e is not doing what you want it to and another game is there is no question. Play the game that meets your needs. Done.

If you want more narration take the lead. Make sure all of your descriptions are oozing with atmosphere and action. I know it's not always easy when you're running the game because you have lots of plates to spin but try and be conscious of it. If you find yourself falling back into "he hits, take 12 damage, he misses, shift one square" etc. snap out of it. Don't allow yourself to contribute to the atmosphere of banality. I'm not at your table so I don't know what you say but I do know from experience that when the rest of the group is flat I don't put as much energy into it either.

There is always a feedback loop of energy in any kind of performance. A receptive and responsive audience leads to a better perform and vice versa.

As far as carrots are concerned I would suggest trying this: don't tell the players what you are going to do just do it. What I mean by this is that if a player does something that you think is good reward them immediately. Even if you've got to lower your standards a bit to what would be rewardable behavior. Once the ball gets rolling you can up the ante, make the narration and player controlled action incrementally more demanding until it reaches the level you are aspiring to.

There are some articles somewhere in my bookmarks about inspiring play at your table. I'll do some poking around and post some links.

Sheesh... I am a long-winded blowhard.